Stop shaming Trump voters
An article in The Guardian says that Trump voters should be publicly “shamed”. Just one more example of how politics takes 30 points off everyone’s IQ.
Here’s why the arguments for public shaming are wrong:
1. “Trump advocates lots of very evil policies.” I agree but so does Hillary. Do we publicly shame Hillary voters too?
2. “Trump’s views are even more evil than Hillary’s” I agree, but lots of very smart and well-meaning people feel otherwise. Because you see the world in a certain way, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to see the world. Politics always leads to other people holding views that we ourselves find almost incomprehensible. Trump’s an extreme case, but not the only one. You and I may think his anti-Hispanic and misogynist rhetoric is outrageous, but that’s no reason to shame the millions of hardworking Hispanics and tens of millions of women who voted for Trump. They simply saw his rhetoric in a different light from the way you and I saw it.
3. “By voting for Trump you are endorsing his vile racism.” Not at all. Most people I know who voted for Trump don’t like the guy—indeed they often suggest they only voted for him because they dislike Hillary even more. Voting is not about “endorsing”, it’s about lesser of evils. Voting for Hillary was not an endorsement of her vile opinions regarding the War on Drugs.
4. Public shaming increases the divisions in our society, making Trump-like figures even more likely in the future.
5. Public shaming of Trump voters is completely inconsistent with the left wing (near religious) belief that the shaming of the “Hollywood 10” back in the 1950s was a disgrace. You can’t have it both ways. The Hollywood 10 also had vile political views.
6. Public shaming of Trump voters also fails on utilitarian grounds; it lowers aggregate utility. That’s because anger directed at people lowers their utility by more than it raises yours.
7. Public shaming of Trump voters risks distorting public opinion polls, making it less likely that people like Hillary Clinton will be aware that they need to pour money into advertising in states like Wisconsin and Michigan.
8. Public shaming risks driving a wedge between friends and family members. In the old days, people took religious belief way too seriously. They’ve mostly stopped that, but replaced their stupid religious bigotry with stupid political bigotry.
So for all you people who want to shame voters with different opinions than you hold, I say shame, shame, shame on you!
(If you want to shame Trump himself, that’s fine. But don’t shame Trump voters.)
Tags:
20. November 2016 at 12:10
Sure, don’t alienate Trump voters. But insult Trump as much as possible. The guy complained about his treatment on Saturday Night Live last night (because they “insulted” him) and asked for “equal time.” Is he serious? Gonna need thicker skin than that as President. Embarrassing!
20. November 2016 at 12:20
I agree that we shouldn’t shame Trump voters. But I think there’s more to say than that.
1. There is no equivalence between Trump and Hillary. I’m not aware of any policies she proposed that I would consider “very evil.” Saying that she has evil policies, just like Trump, risks false equivalence and normalizing Trump. That’s a bad idea.
2. For many of your reasons people should not be shamed. It’s a bad way to treat people, and it’s a bad example to set.
3. But, I think the people who voted for Trump have a lot to explain. In particular, they voted for an obsessive liar, a man who values his own wealth over the good of the country, a man who knows nothing about public policy and wasn’t willing to take the time to learn, a man who for these and other reasons is not suited for being President. Anyone who cast a vote for Trump acted in a way that put the nation at risk. (And that’s not what voting for Hillary would have done. There is no equivalence on that score.) Voting for Trump was a grossly unpatriotic act. It was not just a matter of a political disagreement. In my view, anyone who voted for Trump has a lot to explain on that score.
I’ll agree that I’ve made a pretty strong statement, one that is very negative about the act of voting for Trump. But I believe it stays on the correct side of refraining from shaming. Perhaps you disagree.
20. November 2016 at 12:21
If a person figures politicians in general are crooks and liars, and wants change then went with the one that said change over the one that was more of the same, then that appears to me to be reasonable and rational. Perhaps lacking in deep analysis and thoughtful contemplation of results, but we will not know that for several years. at which time we get to choose again. If the new bunch does not change, then vote a different set.
20. November 2016 at 13:47
I don’t have any strong opinion on voter-shaming one way or the other, but the above comment was clearly written by an idiot who knows nothing about foreign policy or the Supreme Court.
BTW, idiot above, would you rather have a President Trump or a President Pence? I’d definitely pick Trump.
“In my view, anyone who voted for Trump has a lot to explain on that score.”
-Same for any Hillary voter. Blacks should definitely be disenfranchised.
20. November 2016 at 14:29
Ahem…
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31998
20. November 2016 at 14:34
Russ, As I said in the post, I don’t regard Trump and Hillary as equivalent.
Harding, You said;
“I don’t have any strong opinion on voter-shaming one way or the other, ”
I don’t believe you. You already indicated that you have no class, especially in your comments on David French. I’m not surprised that you don’t think blacks should have the vote.
And people wonder why I have a problem with the alt-right
20. November 2016 at 14:44
Yeah E. Harding,
Quit being a “whiny baby” like all Trump supporters:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31560
20. November 2016 at 14:45
Here is how we should treat Trump supporters:
“On further reflection, now I’m sure that Trump supporters are just a bunch of whining babies. Since nothing else has worked, and we know that Trump likes to present a macho image, let’s start mocking Trump and his supporters for needing “safe spaces”, just like those spoiled Ivy League students. Let’s ridicule them for cowering in fear of Chinese and Indian doctors.”
20. November 2016 at 14:59
“My tone-deaf sanctimonious lecturing will continue, as I see it as a way of annoying Trump commenters. I could pity them (as Scott Alexander recommends), but I’m doing them a favor by insulting them instead. I pity the Trump supporters who aren’t smart enough to read blogs about monetary policy. More importantly, I see my tone-deaf sanctimonious lecturing as a way of making Trump seem more toxic. The goal is not to turn Trumpiacs away from him, but to stop others from being seduced.”
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31600
20. November 2016 at 15:26
Voter shaming indicates someone stuck in Stage Two (Anger) of the five stages of grief.
It turns out that Jessica Valenti, who is really an extreme feminist activist, not a journalist, has a colleague who is self-aware enough to agree with me.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/19/grief-five-stages-trump-cant-get-past-anger
20. November 2016 at 15:37
There is Scott Sumner and his alter ego, Scotty Sumner.
Who wrote this post?
20. November 2016 at 15:44
It’s frustrating to see intelligent people claiming Trump is a “vile racist” that employs “anti-hispanic or misogynistic” rhetoric. I based my decision to support him by contrasting what people said about him with his actual speeches.
There’s an immense disparity between what his detractors want to believe and what’s true. He is certainly not a “vile racist.” He’s potentially the most pro-diversity President we’ve ever had. 1) Trump has surrounded himself with multicultural people his entire life 2) He doesn’t pander about diversity 3) He is determined to make inroads with minority voters.
I want to live in a world where people genuinely respect each other; not in a world where highly educated elitists, who are often secretly classist and / or racist, define racial tolerance as saying meaningless words to pretend you’re morally superior.
Many of my minority friends have told me they’re offended and perplexed by white people who are angry on their behalf. But, they’re also scared because they realize these same people will disown & vilify them if they knew their true views.
What did Trump say that is “anti-hispanic?” He opposed illegal immigration. Line cutting isn’t fair or efficient. Ending it is a step towards treating all immigrants, including hispanics, fairly. Most hispanics come here legally and it’s intellectually lazy to equate Trump’s criticism of illegal immigration from Mexico with being anti-hispanic.
What “misogynistic” rhetoric did he use? He never once vilified or denigrated the female gender as Hillary Clinton tried to vilify & bully right-leaning men and women into voting for her because to do otherwise would be anti-woman. If anything, Hillary Clinton is the misogynist that would deny women a right to their own political opinions for her personal benefit.
The left says Trump is “anti-LBGTQ” but, he argued transgender people should use “whatever bathroom they desire” and continues to defend gay marriage. You don’t love NYC & oppose diversity. It’s a silly notion.
The left says Trump is “anti-black” but he’s the one fighting for school choice to give African Americans the opportunities while elitist liberals deny them because they must support teachers unions.
The hypocrisy of Trump’s detractors this election is the most astounding & depressing thing I’ve seen in my lifetime. I hope it ends soon. It’s nice you don’t want to openly “shame” Trump supporters but when you continue this myth that he’s a “vile racist” pursuing “evil” policies that are “anti-women” and “anti-hispanic” you continue to divide the country on false pretenses.
You’re a smart guy. Hopefully you have the intellectual courage to wake up so we can get back to debating issues instead of name calling.
20. November 2016 at 15:54
Scott,
Where’s the empirical evidence to support any of these claims?
20. November 2016 at 16:40
Ben, My views don’t change, it’s just that my readers have trouble interpreting the posts. They assume that if I say A, I must also believe B, C and D. But quite often I believe A, but not B, C or D.
Most people are tribal, they support the talking points of their tribe, no matter how foolish. If they are Trump voters, they tell me all sorts of horrible things about Hillary. If they are Hillary voters they tell me all sorts of horrible things about Trump. I’m not like that, I choose some points from tribe A, and some from tribe B. I call them as I see them.
For instance, I’ve always opposed the Electoral College, both when it favored the Dems (2012) and when it favors the GOP (this year). Where were all the Democratic complaints about the Electoral College in 2012?
20. November 2016 at 17:02
Chris, I’m not one of those liberal/leftists who is constantly accusing Republicans and conservatives of being racists. In the past, however, those conventional conservatives did not generate enthusiasm among the alt-right, the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists, the KKK, etc. Trump has those groups wildly enthusiastic, for the first time I can recall.
Do these groups think Trump is one of them because of their “liberal bias”? Obviously not.
So your hypothesis is that three groups of people, who have nothing in common with each other, have all concluded that Trump is a racist for basically unrelated reasons:
1. The fringe racist right
2. The left.
3. People like me, and other right wing commentators like Cowen, Will, Goldberg and many others. Also conservative politicians like Romney, Paul Ryan, etc.
Now ask yourself why all three of these groups, which have nothing in common with each other, would reach the same bizarre conspiracy theory at the same time.
Or is it possible that you are missing something?
(BTW, I don’t know or care what Trump’s private views are. That doesn’t matter. My claim is that he ran a public campaign appealing to racist instincts.)
20. November 2016 at 17:06
Scott,
Okay, so obviously, this wasn’t meant to actually argue your point with those who would shame Trump voters. I have cut everyone who supported Trump out of my life, both relatives and non-relatives and am doing my best to boycott businesses with leaders who supported Trump and am in general trying to do my part to make supporting Trump as costly as possible.
You appeal to empirical data when posting on economics, and usually do a good job. However, on other topics, you just make baseless claims.
20. November 2016 at 18:28
Scott,
agreed that shaming voters is counterproductive.
BUT
It wouldn’t be a bad idea if the general public, in any democracy btw, not just the US, started taking responsibility for what they voted for. Instead, the general public keeps on seeing themselves as victims that have been mislead any time something goes wrong, something they clearly voted for, sometimes twice or more over a decade or more.
The same goes for civic engagement. Anyone complaining about the bad job “the government” does at any level, local, region, nation, should ask themselves if they ever did anything more than complain and reflexively vote on anger. Write to congressmen, at the very least. Or engage in local issues.
These problems are chronic in any democracy except maybe the Swiss, where people vote so often on so many issues that they possibly do start having a grasp on them.
20. November 2016 at 19:04
“Most people are tribal, they support the talking points of their tribe, no matter how foolish. If they are Trump voters, they tell me all sorts of horrible things about Hillary. If they are Hillary voters they tell me all sorts of horrible things about Trump. I’m not like that, I choose some points from tribe A, and some from tribe B. I call them as I see them.”
Or in the case of Gary Johnson, your tribalism leads to telling all sorts of horrible things about Trump, with some softball horrible things about Clinton, and no horrible things about Johnson, and having no issues with the foolish things he says. He is “far and away the best candidate”.
When Johnson, the supposed libertarian, calls for and supports government to force private producers to give goods and services to people they otherwise do not wish to give goods and services to? You hand-wave it away with characteristic sarcasm:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31889
“Yes, I know, a Johnson/Weld America would be a nightmarish place, where every bakery was forced to carry Nazi wedding cakes.”
Tribal thinkers often cannot perceive their own tribalism. The reason why they see tribalism all around them is because their own tribalism is different.
20. November 2016 at 19:27
“I’ve always opposed the Electoral College, both when it favored the Dems (2012) and when it favors the GOP (this year).”
-Same here. The EC allows the GOP to delay resolving potentially crushing long-term demographic problems. I think everybody’s vote should count, not just the votes of people like me who live in key swing states.
BTW, Sumner, Orange County and Greenwich, Darien, and New Canaan, CT, went for Clinton. Not Trump, as you predicted for at least the OC.
20. November 2016 at 19:29
Reasonable people can disagree on the question of whether Trump is racist. There is a lot of evidence that he isn’t. There are enough slam-dunk incontrovertible arguments against Trump. It’s tactically foolish to launch attacks on Trump where he has a credible defense.
Trump is afraid to alienate racists because he sees them as an important part of his base. That much is clearly true, and it’s bad enough.
That’s the biggest problem with the anti-Trump activists. They throw everything they can think of at him, including a lot of obviously bad and exaggerated attacks. Like the outrage that he claimed a tax deduction for losing money or when he complained about a reigning beauty queen who became seriously overweight. They got frustrated when they weren’t able to completely sink his campaign so they cranked up the anti-Trump rhetoric even higher with dumber and dumber arguments. But instead of destroying him, they just hardened the opposition and undermined the credibility of the better anti-Trump arguments.
The existing anti-Trump strategy has obviously failed, and it’s time for a change. Calm down, focus on the issues where Trump is indefensible and stop getting distracted by nonsense.
20. November 2016 at 19:46
This should be heartening to Scott: UW Madison was one of the special snowflake winners this election!
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Yes-You-re-Right-Colleges/238400
“During this election cycle, Dane County, home to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, voted overwhelmingly Democratic and gave Hillary Clinton even more votes than it had given Barack Obama four years earlier.”
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/american-colleges-are-true-liberal-bubbles-voting-data-confirms/
20. November 2016 at 19:53
Public shaming sounds like a porn category some people are into, where the girl has sex in public or walks around led by a dog leash (which I’ve actually seen in San Francisco once).
The election is over; bring back the old Sumner discussing how monetarism will save the world. Kooky stuff like that is why I keep coming back to this site.
20. November 2016 at 19:56
My claim is that he ran a public campaign appealing to racist instincts.
This might be true or not. The point is that attacking him on this doesn’t seem to work. I assume it’s because his opponents run similar campaigns based on race (or the infamous “identity politics”), so it’s nothing new really.
Take guys like Romney and McCain as an example. They never ran on or against identity politics and therefore lost clearly to “Mr. Identity” Obama.
started taking responsibility for what they voted for.
…
something they clearly voted for, sometimes twice or more over a decade or more.
…
These problems are chronic in any democracy except maybe the Swiss, where people vote so often on so many issues that they possibly do start having a grasp on them
“Having a grasp” is not the reason why the Swiss democracy is working and others don’t.
The Swiss decide directly that’s why they can be held directly responsible. There’s a direct path between their decision and the result.
That’s not at all the case in democracies like the US and Germany. In those democracies it’s all messed up. In those democracies it’s very often the case that you can’t really tell who is responsible and who is not.
I think that’s one major problem of a lot of democracies today. It must become clear again who is responsible. Then (and only then) the voter can be held responsible again as well.
20. November 2016 at 20:05
Chris,
Thanks for an excellent post. I agree with you entirely and I do not find Scott’s rebuttal to your argument persuasive.
You said “I based my decision to support him by contrasting what people said about him with his actual speeches.”
YES, this was my approach also and I came to the same conclusion that you came to.
I did not give Trump a pass. He was rude and said many annoying things but as you said, I do not believe he is racist etc. Many of his policies like his trade policies struck me as terrible. If someone other than Hillary had been his opponent I might not have voted for him.
20. November 2016 at 20:13
Slate has a hilariously inconsistent take on the electoral college:
https://twitter.com/SouthernKeeks/status/797960210971115520
20. November 2016 at 20:21
Quite. Point-and-shriek helped elect The Donald and drove the working class to vote against pointing-and-shrieking in the US and UK (Brexit). So, the answer is …. even more pointing-and-shrieking!
But it is not about being politically effective, it is about status-mongering and cognitive tribalism.
Your point is even stronger because the key story with the election is not The Donald winning votes (he improved the Republican vote by about the same amount as did Romney). The problem is with the Democrats (continuing to) shed votes.
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/understanding-2016-us-presidential.html
But “shaming” folk who failed to show up and vote Democrat would be perhaps too obviously self-defeating even for the Guardian.
20. November 2016 at 20:27
Christian List,
all major democracies, even the Swiss, are representative democracies and so most of the actual decisions are naturally delegated. But in the Swiss case, a lot of decisions are quite local, plus there are much more direct referenda. But it’s still a representative democracy. And we can’t get away from representative democracy any more than we could have worker’s councils vote on all corporate decisions. Government is a country’s (hopefully) professional management, and the executive branch has all the hallmarks of a corporation.
I find it’s one of the major psychological hurdles in this discussion that people conflate government = country. It isn’t. The conflation adds a lot of emotional drama to elections that is unnecessary. Government isn’t even “running the country”. It’s just managing state assets. And to a libertarian like me, it shouldn’t really “direct” the way “the country is going” either. Nor should “the people”: why should my neighbors tell me what to do? Never mind direct or indirect ways of doing so.
But, and this was my point, while people may not be expected to have a grasp on complex policy issues (the case against referenda), people should be able to tell snakes oil salesmen from professional managers. Here, the American people has clearly failed IMO, by selecting the B team. Maybe even the C+ team.
20. November 2016 at 21:42
Lorenzo,
What actual evidence tells you that shaming Trump voters will backfire? Be specific.
I think that a combination of total Democratic condemnation and obstruction, along with purposely provoking Trump will bring out the worst in him, limit his effectiveness(and damage), and show a picture of him as being completely incompetent and bringing nothing, but flame wars and general discord to Washington. To the degree it’s effective, it could also split the Republican Party.
That, coupled with shaming and shunning Trump voters could send them into hiding, and hopefully suppresd their turnout in the next election.
It doesn’t pay to treat fascists decently. Punishment is all they understand.
20. November 2016 at 23:25
Scott,
Thanks for hearing me out. I think I can still win you over. Consider:
1. The size of these groups is severely over exaggerated for political purposes. There are ~3k KKK members in the U.S. You don’t win elections by courting fringe groups. If you win all 3k KKK members, who likely live in deep red states already, you accomplish nothing except losing tremendous numbers of people in swing states who deplore racism.
2. The left spent tremendous energy arguing that Trump was racist precisely because my point #1 is true. It’s a losing strategy to court racist groups which is why HRC aggressively argued that’s what he was doing.
3. It’s not surprising that racist groups prefer Trump given his stance on illegal immigration versus Hillary Clinton’s, but that means nothing. Racist groups likely also enjoy chocolate cake, but that doesn’t make you racist for liking chocolate cake too. Likewise, Trump’s stance on illegal immigration may be appealing to racist groups, but that doesn’t mean minorities won’t also benefit from a saner & fairer stance on immigration.
It’s seems like we’re a long way from admitting that many of us fell victim to incredibly divisive political propaganda. When I hear people like Scott Freelander say “I cut everyone who supported Trump out of my life” it makes the costs of continuing to spread this propaganda much more apparent.
Hopefully you’ll join me soon in helping bring an end to the divisiveness of this election. We should be debating the merits of policy. Not deciding to hate each other because a $1 billion political campaign convinced millions of Americans of a false reality.
20. November 2016 at 23:31
Scott: your strategy does not actually require any shaming of voters. But your success requires changing votes.
I think Jonathan Pie says it all …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
21. November 2016 at 00:45
Lorenzo,
So, some British guy yelling into a camera on Youtube is what you cite. Hmmm. I wonder if your message will change a lot of minds.
Look, human beings need to be herded to a degree. This is especially true of these Trump sheep. Herding them requires scaring them to a degree. We can’t be afraid to turn the dogs on them.
Obama and the Democratic Party deserve a lot of blame for this. Far too much has been tolerated for too long.
For example, when those right-wing terrorists, and that’s what they should be called, like the Bundy clan and their ilk, carry guns against government officials or take over government buildings, they should be surrounded by federal agents, given 30 seconds to surrender, and then be slaughtered if they don’t. Instead, we’ve gone soft on them, much as inter-war Germany went soft on Hitler after his famous beer putsch.
These Trump supporters are largely very stupid, insecure people who cannot be reasoned with. Like children, they must have firm boundaries established for them. And they will rail against such boundaries, even as they allay their fears and demoralize their animal natures. These are people who want to be led strongly.
On the flip side, we have to treat foreign threats the same way. Obama and many others in Washibgton have rational attitudes, but their otherwise justified calm in the face of the very limited ISIS threat was completely at odds with the zeitgeist. Obama doesn’t understand that a couple of Marine Corp divisions slaughtering these animals in ISIS was a political requirement for peace at home.
We need strong leaders in the establishment, like FDR in times like these. He was a very paternal figure who gave no quarter to right-wing opposition, and the people loved him for it. His legacy in terms of establishing liberal dominance lasted until begining in about 1980.
21. November 2016 at 00:54
Also, I would point out that these idiots in Washington have to get the economic growth up, really at all costs. There’s a huge difference over a generation brought about by 1% slower real growth, compared to the pre-Great Recession trajectory.
Notice that FDR remained in power, despite his economic policies failing to get the US out of the Depression. He won 4 terms!
I promise you that if Trump’s failures are as obvious even to the idiots who voted for him as I suspect they will be, a fair number of those same voters would support a left-wing kook making stupid promises about giving away free stuff, if that kook is seen as strong and either honest, or understood.
21. November 2016 at 03:45
Look, human beings need to be herded to a degree. This is especially true of these Trump sheep. Herding them requires scaring them to a degree. We can’t be afraid to turn the dogs on them.
And, of course, you are not a sheep.
There is this thing called the secret ballot. Make folk resent you and yours, and they will take out in the secrecy of the ballot booth.
21. November 2016 at 04:16
These Trump supporters are largely very stupid, insecure people who cannot be reasoned with. Like children, they must have firm boundaries established for them. And they will rail against such boundaries, even as they allay their fears and demoralize their animal natures. These are people who want to be led strongly.
The Donald won a series of crucial states because white working class voters who had voted solidly for Obama switched to The Donald. An analysis which says people are clever when they vote they way you want and stupid when they do not is not worth anything.
If you cannot understand why they switched, that is you problem, not theirs. Particularly as the switch appears to have been underway before The Donald was a surreal possibility.
21. November 2016 at 04:26
Lorenzo,
You’re making a lot of aszertions and still no evidence. I haven’t provided evidence either, and yet here we are. I will s5ick with my current view until I see a compelling reason to change. You can continue to believe you understand the psyche of the Trump voter better than I do, and keep blaming their opponents, despite the unfortunate benefit of the doubt the morons have received.
And when you talk about voters who switched from Obama, you aren’t talking about many at all, and Trump did bring some to the polls who may otherwise not have voted. And, of course, most of Obama’s voters need to be better herded too.
21. November 2016 at 05:04
Rules Democrats Must Follow to Win the Presidency
1. Do not nominate candidates who are both weak, and unlikeable. Hillary, Gore, and Kerry were both all weak and unlikeable. Obama and Bill Clinton were weak, but likeable. Dukakis was weak enough that his likeability wasn’t sufficient. Mondale was weak and less likeable than Reagan. Carter was arrogant and aloof, and was a post-Nixon rebound choice. He was not as strong or as likeable as Reagan. LBJ was strong, but not likeable. Kennedy had just enough likeability to edge him out versus Nixon’s perceived strength. FDR was strong and likeable and hence a transformative political figure, like Reagan.
2. Be more Machiavellian. The Republicans have lived by this for decades. Stop bringing tea to a gun fight. Don’t be afraid to demagogue. Use the language the right has used to demogogue liberals. Conservative gun owners are terrorists and vigilantes, for example. People who talk about bankrupting the government or state succession are traitors. The christian right are the American Taliban, or American ISIS. Have no mercy on conservatives, ever.
3. Be stronger on national defense issues and law and order. This is about swagger, not just about substance, but substantively defend American interests overseas much more aggresively and violently put down terrorists of all stripes at home.
4. Give away more money, or at least make current transfer payments simpler and more efficient, not contigent on household makeup, marital status, etc. Wage subsidies and GMI should replace all other programs.
5. Truly be as neutral on culture and religion, policy-wise, as possible. Take the government out of marriage recognition, fund education with vouchers, and let women pay for their own birth control and abortions.
6. Appoint better people to the FOMC, if not fundamentally reform how monetary policy is carried out. Above all, do not allow rates to be needlessly raised just 11 months before a national election, for example.
7. Scrap Obamacare in favor of uniform single payer catastrophic coverage, with HSAs and subsidies where needed for non-catastrophic care.
8. Turn the national conversation to the future, including especially automation and the possible future decline in the value of human labor in general.
21. November 2016 at 05:11
9. Allow all 11 million or so illegal immigrants to stay permanently, but without citizenship. Allow any and all non-criminals who want to live and/or work here do so, but with citizenship only granted to veterans and certain select high-productivity people.
10. Stop raising so much money from corporate donors and wealthy individuals. Candidates who cannot raise money the Bernie Sanders way should not represent the Democratic Party.
21. November 2016 at 05:22
Luigi Zingales making the same points in the NYTimes, drawing on the Italian experience with Berlusconi: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-right-way-to-resist-trump.html
21. November 2016 at 07:18
Anon,
At least the author you cite is discussing a possible historical parallel, which is more than the anti-shamers here have done. However, how parallel is the example? I’ll have to try to learn more about the Burlesconi years.
I certainly don’t like most of the advice to the Democrats. I don’t want a trillion+ dollar infrastructure bill financed by deficits. I also don’t want another Glass-Steagall.
However, the advice to avoid runningn members of the old guard, especially a Clinton is very good. Tim Caine for VP was a stupid choice, if for no other reason than the VP slot should be reserved for young, bright stars we want to be President one day.
Still, I’ll study the parallels in the Italian example and be open to changning my mind about how to best oppose Trump. I definitely agree that we need to run with a real message, and one simply conceived and conveyed.
21. November 2016 at 07:19
“These Trump supporters are largely very stupid, insecure people who cannot be reasoned with. Like children, they must have firm boundaries established for them. And they will rail against such boundaries, even as they allay their fears and demoralize their animal natures. These are people who want to be led strongly.”
That has to be one of the most arrogant, stupid quotes I have ever read…right up there with Hillary’s Basket of Deplorables comment. I am sure that you have lots of personal contact with Trump supporters on which to base this on. Who does not want strong effective leadership? I think most Trump supports would look at it like a sports analogy….Do I want to be on a baseball team where the coach is more worried about hurting someone’s feelings or do I want to be on a team that is winning.
21. November 2016 at 07:25
These are great points.
I would add that I look at the entire Trump phenomenon in a different way than most people do. I am old enough to remember this point and was paying attention to Trump at the time, and one of the reasons he was considering a run 2000, more so than in previous cycles, was because he disliked Pat Buchanan’s rhetoric. I suppose it was fortunate for Trump that his public statements on the matter were not brought to light because it may have raised questions about his sincerity. But it presents a bit of a puzzle for sociologists and political scientists everywhere regarding which came first, a shifting in public mood toward immigration and trade, with Trump simply vocalizing sentiment that many were already feeling, or was Trump leading it.
I don’t believe people are mindless lemmings, in general, and tend toward the idea that Trump simply tapped into trends in public mood for his own benefit; because after all, if one wants to be President, the first order of business is to get elected. I doubt Trump personally believes many the ideas that he recently directly conveyed or have been attributed to him that many find so controversial. I am sure that as a business person, he understands the importance of marketing the wares for profit – regardless of whether the wares are things that people really need.
If this point is anywhere near the mark, it’s likely that shaming Trump supporters would not have the desired effect of shifting public mood to where, for lack of better term, elites wish it to be. It is probably better for them to stand back, waiting and watching for Trump to be hanged with his own rope, which will undoubtedly happen when he fails to deliver on his outsized and outlandish promises. Trump will have his own reckoning, and these is no point for more cosmopolitan-minded people to tarnish themselves while trying to hasten it. The meantime would be better spent on rehabilitating the image of elites, rather than appearing to label nearly everything they find objectionable as racially motivated. That approach is overused, overtired and has been soundly rejected in the only public opinion poll that matters – the election.
21. November 2016 at 08:04
engineer,
You want to call my comments stupid and arrogant, and then question whether I’ve had much contact with Trump voters? I stated above, I’ve disowned members of my family and some old business acquaintances, along with some people I went to school with. In fact, I’ve shunned 4 cousins in the past two weeks alone, along with an aunt.
I’ve had much too much contact with these Trump animals, including online strangers. Besides, anyone who’d vote for Trump in the general election is an idiot, a crook(among the elite), or both. That’s obvious, and of course these animals can’t be reasoned with. As the cliche goes, you can’t reason people out of ideas they didn’t reason themselves into.
Now, since you chose to call me stupid personally, without an apology on your part, you will be ignored from now on.
21. November 2016 at 08:21
Bonnie,
remember that Mussolini started out as an antiwar socialist, schoolteacher and newspaper editor. He later realized there was more ooomph in nationalism as opposed to internationalism. So Trump’s past opinions too may have limited power to predict future performance.
21. November 2016 at 08:30
Bonnie,
You offer some thoughtful comments, and your point about the election may have some merit, but weren’t similar things said about Hitler? It was assumed he’d overplay his habd, and he did, but he didn’t pay a price until tens of millions were dead.
If course, Trump hasn’t indicated goals for military domination, but I think anything short of massive social and financial pressure could mean much damage is done before he’s finished. I think it’s important Trump not be normalized.
21. November 2016 at 08:55
remember that Mussolini started out as an antiwar socialist, schoolteacher and newspaper editor. He later realized there was more ooomph in nationalism as opposed to internationalism. So Trump’s past opinions too may have limited power to predict future performance.
Mussolini was 36 years old when he founded the Fasci in 1919.
Trump is 70.
Mussolini was one step above a professional agitator prior to 1922. If you run down the list of inter-war fascist chieftains, what strikes you is how ordinary (in the case of Hitler and CZ Codreanu, subordinary) most of them were in their manifest talents and accomplishments outside of political life. The exceptions were the leaders of Norwegian, Finnish, and Czech parties. What’s interesting about that is that the Norwegian and Czech parties were thoroughly unsuccessful. The Finnish Party had some popular traction; the party chieftain (an academic and high civil servant) was actually a stand-in for the imprisoned farmer who was the party’s foundational leader. No inter-war fascist leader was a denizen of the business community. Professional agitators, small time local bourgeois, military officers at various grades, yes. Businessmen, no.
21. November 2016 at 08:57
I’ve disowned members of my family and some old business acquaintances, along with some people I went to school with. In fact, I’ve shunned 4 cousins in the past two weeks alone, along with an aunt.
I’ll wager they won’t miss you.
21. November 2016 at 09:04
Art Deco,
relevance? If anything, Trump can be expected to have more oomph and a 70 year old to be more erratic than a man in his prime. Not to mention Mussolini’s mature 56 years of age at the outbreak of WWII, and how did that work out.
21. November 2016 at 09:04
More oomph due to past experience of power, more erratic due to age.
21. November 2016 at 09:04
Trump’s more hysterical critics on the left don’t seem to understand they are doubling down on precisely the behavior that resulted in Trump.
Berate a VP-elect in your audience at a play, and self-righteously refuse to apologize? Lots of like-minded people will cheer you, but lots of other people will identify with the object of your incivility.
And when Trump attacks you in response, lots of people will cheer for him.
21. November 2016 at 09:06
1. Do not nominate candidates who are both weak, and unlikeable. Hillary, Gore, and Kerry were both all weak and unlikeable. Obama and Bill Clinton were weak, but likeable. Dukakis was weak enough that his likeability wasn’t sufficient. Mondale was weak and less likeable than Reagan. Carter was arrogant and aloof, and was a post-Nixon rebound choice.
Mr. Mondale’s opponents were Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Mr. Dukakis’ opponents were Jesse Jackson, Albert Gore, Paul Simon, and Richard Gephardt. Mr. Gore’s was Bill Bradley. Mr. Kerry’s were John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark. Paul Si,mon might have been a marginally better candidate than Dukakis; Bill Bradley was largely brushed aside by the Democratic electorate; and Wesley Clark won one state. While we’re at it, the Democratic electorate in 1992 nominated grifter Bill over two candidates who were his superior in every way (Bob Kerrey, Jerry Brown) and a third (Paul Tsongas) who lacked executive experience but had something to say (and no history of scandals). Democratic voters have been getting the candidates they want. They had an opportunity with Sanders and completely blew it.
21. November 2016 at 09:15
LOL at Scott Freelander. His movement is going to be very lonely, at least around here.
21. November 2016 at 09:19
relevance? If anything, Trump can be expected to have more oomph and a 70 year old to be more erratic than a man in his prime. Not to mention Mussolini’s mature 56 years of age at the outbreak of WWII, and how did that work out.
You and the moderator keep drawing analogies. When it’s pointed out to you the ways in which these figures are not analogous, you declare arbitrarily that that’s ‘irrelevant’.
He’s a finished product mbka, and old men do not grow wise. They grow careful. The notion that he’s getting senile is fanciful.
Mussolini entered the 2d World War when Hitler was burning rubber. Hitler had a number of allies navigating the winds (Admiral Horthy, Tsar Boris, Pres. Ryti of Finland, Pres. Hacha of Czechoslovakia). Prince Paul of Yugoslavia and Admiral Horthy managed to survive the war and its immediate aftermath. Pres. Ryti served a prison term. The rest ended up dead. Geography and happenstance differentiated them.
21. November 2016 at 09:24
Notice that FDR remained in power, despite his economic policies failing to get the US out of the Depression. He won 4 terms!
The country experienced rapid growth from the spring of 1933 to the beginning of 1937 and from mid-1938 until the end of the War. Per capita product returned to 1929 levels in 1939 and to the long term trend line in 1941. The labor market remained sclerotic, for which the WPA and like programs partially corrected).
21. November 2016 at 09:41
Art Deco,
you stress the dissimilarities, I stress the similarities. By default, similarities are more poignant than dissimilarities between the things of this world. They also point at patterns. Patterns allow us to learn by analogy. Analogies rely on pattern matching (or more accurately, on mapping systems onto one another). All science uses analogy extensively. Analogies are a very good hint at possible futures.
21. November 2016 at 09:57
I stress the similarities.
There are no similarities. The only patterns are the one’s you’ve manufactured between your two ears.
21. November 2016 at 10:11
Tall Dave,
More assertions. How do you actually convince the shamers?
21. November 2016 at 10:29
My favorite shaming act of the last 10 days was the cast of Hamilton’s speech to Pence. The presumption was “perhaps you are not the jackass creep you seem to be, so we will show you how forgiving we can be if you change everything you believe in”.
Hitler seems to have been either an insane fruitcake or evil. Why should I not think his followers were the same? Since I do not think the overwhelming majority of Clinton and Trump supporters are either insane or evil, I choose to believe who they voted for are not either as well.
Those who “shame” Trump voters seem like idiots to me
And I definitely feel more stupid for having written this.
21. November 2016 at 10:35
mbka, Yup, Voters often support those who “bring home the bacon” and then complain about “corruption.”
Chris, You said:
“Hopefully you’ll join me soon in helping bring an end to the divisiveness of this election.”
Soon? This is why commenters drive me crazy. Did you even read my post? The post was saying we shouldn’t be taking this personally (a point I also made several times before the election). I don’t know how I could be any more explicit in trying to bring people together.
But if you want me to stop criticize Trump for appointing nuts like Bannon, Flynn and that new CIA head (I forget his name) then you may be waiting for a long time. That will depend on Trump.
Yes, I know that the KKK is really small, but that has no bearing on my argument. I pointed out that three different groups, with nothing in common, all saw Trump’s message as racist. One group thought that was good, the other two did not. Were they all delusional? I’m told by high school students that the bullies in their high school that generally like to mock minorities also love Trump. Hmm, I wonder what they see in Trump?
21. November 2016 at 11:01
Scott,
Yes, we should not be taking this personally, yet you personally insult Trumpistas on a regular basis. Is this okay, because your goal isn’t to shame them, or because they also insult you?
And there’s more irony. You’re every bit as arrogant and dismissive of the pro-shamers in this case as you accuse the shamers of being. You simply listed a list of assertions with no supporting evidence, arguments, etc. Was that written to try to persuade, or just to communicate with those who agree with you? You could save us all time and trouble by stating upfront when you don’t intend to actually address those opposed to your assertions.
21. November 2016 at 11:07
Michael Rulle,
How is making baseless statements useful to anyone?
21. November 2016 at 11:25
One group thought that was good, the other two did not. Were they all delusional?
Call it motivated reasoning.
21. November 2016 at 11:36
But if you want me to stop criticize Trump for appointing nuts like Bannon, Flynn and that new CIA head
Your problem is you engage in rhetorical games and then you believe the nonsense you type. Here we have a flag-rank officer who has served as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. That requires decades of working with people in administrative hierarchies, something faculty members do not do. Here we have in Bannon a well-educated man with a multifarious career. It’s mildly interesting that you fancy a slew of functional and accomplished adults are ‘nuts’, but only because you have a habit of impugning just about everyone’s judgment. ‘Nuts’ might be a passable descriptor for Alan Grayson or Maxine Waters (whose employment histories are almost entirely limited to legislative staffs and law offices).
21. November 2016 at 11:53
Hitler seems to have been either an insane fruitcake or evil. Why should I not think his followers were the same? Since I do not think the overwhelming majority of Clinton and Trump supporters are either insane or evil, I choose to believe who they voted for are not either as well.
It’s highly unlikely there were all that many insane or evil in the German electorate in 1930 or 1932 or 1933, or that the essential nature of indi
vidual Germans would change all that much between 1928 and 1948. That Hitler was a vicious and murderous fanatic is indisputable. Without firing a shot, he’d managed to effect an abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles over a six year period, regained nearly all the Germanophone territory it was practicable to hold, acquired territories the Hohenzollern Reich had never held (but within which the productive capacity replaced most of what was to be had from Alsace-Lorraine and Germany’s quondam overseas dependencies), implemented a re-armament program in defiance of Versilles provisions but acceded to explicitly in the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, and continued to stiff the allies re German war reparations. The only cookie left on the plate was the war guilt clause. Then he proceeds to take Germany into a war against all comers which left the country subjugated and in ruins. He actually believed that mess about lebensraum and wire-pulling Jews.
People voting for Hitler in 1930 were reacting to a series of stressors and contra a series of threats. Avoiding Hitler was contingent on the praetorian / monarchist element in Germany’s establishment contriving an inspiring alternative.
This year, Trump and Clinton are indicative of the character of elites and indicative of what people will put up with in a decadent age. The quality of human being that’s raised in this country has been declining for six or seven decades, so this is really not surprising (re the supply side or the demand side). Trump’s detractors fancy they’re better than that. They’re worse.
21. November 2016 at 14:35
Populism is a vague term, but typically populist movements are built around some notion of an elite perpetrating some injustice against them. Hitler had the Jews, Chavez had the capitalists, etc.
The problem for Trump’s critics is that they themselves are generally part of the elites Trump’s movement is built on resentment of: politicians, media, entertainment. So every hyperbolic attack makes Trump stronger — the more you try to de-normalize Trump, the more you legitimize him.
21. November 2016 at 14:40
Here’s the thing, it’s not that ‘shaming’ Trump voters is a good idea, but it’s perhaps a good idea to focus on the fact that now he’s in charge, let’s be very clear on his many faults.
I think some (many? few?) Trump voters have started to move past the euphoric phase of victory in preventing Clinton from becoming president. Mission accomplished and all that.
Now the feeling may be ‘oh boy, now look who we voted in’. Most Trump voters thought he was the lesser of two evils. Now that the greater one is gone, the lesser one is in charge. And he’s still an evil, lesser or no.
21. November 2016 at 15:00
I thought the whole point of this blog was shaming Trump voters? I’m half joking here.
One comment regarding race and the voting franchise: There is broad acknowledgement that different ethnic groups vote differently, people vote according to ethnic group interests, ethnicity is inherited on a strictly biological basis, it seems impossible to remove race from politics, it’s a logical corollary that it is self-interest to exclude rival ethnic groups from gaining voting rights to your voting group. National boundaries served this purpose in the past, but now there is a successful global movement of the right of free movement across borders. I am not advocating racial disenfranchisement at all, but rather the need for a better system of governance than majority rule democracy.
21. November 2016 at 15:16
@Massimo: you are advocating racial purity in each nation as being required for democracy
21. November 2016 at 18:26
@Massimo
I think if you dig deeper into voter breakdowns you’ll find your ethnicity theory starts to break down.
On a quick glance at the 2016 Presidential election you can say your theory holds: white voters favored Trump by a margin of 20% and Hispanic voters favored Hillary by 36% and Black Voters favored her by 80%.
A quick slice of those numbers shows that college educated whites favored Trump by only 4% and Cuban Americans voted for Trump by 7%. Evangelical Whites favored Trump by 65%. Catholic whites favored him by 7%. Jews, who are mostly white, favored Clinton by 47%. And so on…
21. November 2016 at 18:58
Since you asked, I’ll shame Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-scramble-to-assess-the-dangers-of-president-elects-global-business-empire/2016/11/20/1bbdc2a2-ad18-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html
There was some credible criticism of how Hillary cared less than most politicians about appearances of impropriety. But then Trump voters successfully said Trump was better because of Hillary’s corruption. It made no damn sense. Hillary was defined corrupt for meeting with Bill Gates and Nobel Peace Prize winner. I mean, damn, by that standard what does that make Trump?
21. November 2016 at 19:32
A fatalistic viewpoint with no data, study, or professional opinion to back it up. But I venture to guess all the shaming in the world won’t do half the damage to Trumps presidency that a poorly timed recession in late 2018 will do.
Further, he’s the president now anyway. The people who voted for him will feel shame enough if in 4 years the manufacturing jobs worth 60k a year for turning a widget aren’t stateside and their daughters and sons are still stuck in oxycontin stupors despite all the promises of donald trump in 2016. You as a thinking individual neednot do anything really. Trump will bring shame to himself.
21. November 2016 at 19:52
I read your post and my original post addressed it much like my subsequent post addressed your reply. The thesis of my initial post is that you’re still “shaming” Trump voters by falsely accusing them of supporting a racist.
You want to continue calling him racist because “racist groups like him.” I explained why that’s an unfair position in my last post. Again, we need to stop name calling and get back to debating the merits of issues.
Any future politician who strongly opposes illegal immigration will be supported by these groups. If you continue to use this argument, then we will never be allowed to oppose illegal immigration.
Beyond that, inaccurately calling Trump racist has undesirable consequences. The false narrative about Trump being racist has people like Scott Freelander so upset he’s denouncing his friends & family members. He’s de-humanizing Trump supporters and encouraging extreme hatred towards them. I think we can both agree this is not how we want people to behave, but if intelligent members of society can’t stop spreading Hillary Clinton’s political narrative then you’ll encourage more people to be just as hateful as Mr. Freelander.
Re: HS bullies, as someone that’s been involved in education, I often use self-fulfilling prophesies to help people develop. Tell a child they’re stupid and they’ll perform worse. Tell them they’re thoughtful and they’ll treat others kindly. Tell them they’re a natural athlete and they’ll perform better at sports. Tell them they’re racist and… what do you think will happen?
The left has been going around accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being racist during this election. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising children are acting out. How many times would you allow people to call you racist before you want to lash out at the people saying it?
21. November 2016 at 20:08
If you continue to use this argument, then we will never be allowed to oppose illegal immigration.
That’s the moderator’s whole point.
The left has been going around accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being racist during this election.
The bulk of the left has been carrying on that way since about 1988. Some fragments thereof were so fifteen or twenty years earlier. What’s been interesting in recent years is seeing the Republican Capitol Hill / K Street nexus side quite openly with media hucksters against their own voters and contributors and even candidates. Paul Ryan is a tool.
21. November 2016 at 20:13
Hillary was defined corrupt for meeting with Bill Gates and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
No, she’s been defined as corrupt for the characteristics and events of her professional life. She was dismissed for cause from the first law job she ever had, on the board of the Legal Services Corporation turning it into an Alinskyite fraud by age 32 and manifesting her talents at futures trading at age 34, practicing law in front of commissions appointed by her husband throughout the period between age 30 and age 44, and setting up her buckraking and pay-for-play scheme at age 54. She didn’t set up a private server to conceal her yoga routines.
21. November 2016 at 20:31
You say that voting is not endorsing, but isn’t it simply an endorsement if you don’t live in a swing state? I know that there were a few states like Wisconsin that unexpectedly became swing states so you might want to vote for the lesser evil if you live in a state that is even within 10 percentage points of either candidate. But surely everyone who voted for a presidential candidate in Massachusetts or Alabama was truly engaging in an act of political expression and endorsement.
21. November 2016 at 23:17
The problem with Marginal Trump voters is the same with Bish voters. Both are easy marks for a conman and depressingly naive.
The left mad the same mistake with trump as it
Did
With Bush, it keeps assuming that it’s automatic knowledge how
Horrible he is, when it isn’t. I remember when I used
To support bush in his first term, I didn’t get what the fuss is about, and was put off at the hysterical tone the Democrats used. It took me time to evolve from a conservative to a classical liberal and to decide that the Democrats were more classical liberal than conservatives.
fast forward 8 years, and we see the same problems with voters in Pennsylvania Ohio Wisconsin and Michigan falling to this
Conman, this fraud.
Chris, it’s not so much
His racism, (though he is a master of dog whistles) it’s his authoritarian instincts,( check out his frightening admiration for dictatorship, and not just Vladimir Putin!)his
disgusting narcissistic personality. The fact that he advocates on Fox and fRoends going after terrorists families, ( a war crime!!!!!!!!) “bring back water boarding and worse than water boarding even if it doesn’t work)
Are you beginning to see why some of us think
trump is a sociopath?!!!
22. November 2016 at 00:20
“No, she’s been defined as corrupt for the characteristics and events of her professional life. She was dismissed for cause from the first law job she ever had, on the board of the Legal Services Corporation turning it into an Alinskyite fraud by age 32 and manifesting her talents at futures trading at age 34, practicing law in front of commissions appointed by her husband throughout the period between age 30 and age 44, and setting up her buckraking and pay-for-play scheme at age 54. She didn’t set up a private server to conceal her yoga routines.”
No, she wasn’t fired from the Watergate investigation job. She was there’s until Nixon resigned.
http://urbanmyths.com/urban-myths/politics/fact-or-fiction-was-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation/
Only other point I’ll make is Trump voters love to mock the private e-mails as “yoga schedules.” But really the actual point you’re making makes no damn sense. You’re not intimating that there is some clearly criminal conspiracy in e-mail that she then deleted. Hillary is at once so cunning as to kill that poor DNC staffer and so dumb as to put ignorant in e-mail.
I’m not going to extensively argue the rest of the points because, well, she did didn’t win. It’s not about her. It’s about “post-truth” politics in general, such as the inflated EU number used for Brexit. It actually matters whether, say, Hillary was fired for cause from the Watergate investigation. It’s worth doing a minimal amount of searching.
It also matters whether her alternative was worse, not because “my side” wins but because Trump has an unparalleled, opaque financial structure. He was actually the far more corrupt choice, if the word corrupt retains any meaning at all.
22. November 2016 at 01:32
I will admit that I misread that quote referring to the LSC. The first job after law school Clinton had was in fact the Watergate commission. She had other legal jobs back in Arkansas before the LSC board position. She wasn’t fired but replaced by a Reagan recess appointment.
There was a scandal at the LSC in that its offices lobbied for the continued existence of LSC. Without looking too deeply into it, Hillary strikes me simply as left-wing. You know, she actually wanted the LSC to continue to exist. And I don’t make any bones that Hillary is indeed to the left of Obama.
But she’s not opposed as a typical Democrat. She’s opposed with this incoherent mess of accusations and insinuations. You know, remember the Hillary health thing from the 9/11 service? So did anything happen with that or perhaps it turned out she did have pneumonia? The Clinton Foundation did not give 10% to charity but 90%. For the e-mail thing, like I said the anti-Clinton hypothesis makes no sense. A lot of communication actually happens outside of e-mail.
So, while Clinton was not perfect by any means, the allegation that she had more of an appearance of possible corruption than Trump is laughable. Literally meetings with Nobel Peace Prize winner were used as a “raises questions” argument about Clinton Foundation, while Trump’s personal finances have FAR, FAR more opaqueness and issues.
22. November 2016 at 03:03
Edward,
Good comments.
22. November 2016 at 03:06
Jpd,
You’re probably right, but me and my brothers have happily publicly shunned the Trumpistas in my family. Why take a chance that Trump gets unlucky?
22. November 2016 at 06:45
No, she wasn’t fired from the Watergate investigation job. She was there’s until Nixon resigned.
The chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee fired her and two other attorneys and said those three are the only attorneys he employed in a 14 year period he’d never give a reference for. He’s been quite explicit about this. The purveyors of snopes have been peddling the line for years that they didn’t work for him, which should discredit snopes.
22. November 2016 at 06:47
But really the actual point you’re making makes no damn sense.
The point makes sense. You’re bound and determined to be addled, which is not a problem I can fix.
22. November 2016 at 08:52
the EC has been around since the founding of the US. today we think it was to make it so that we (voters) wouldnt get carried away. i suspect it was really to try and keep us from going to far one way or another. also to keep us from tearing up the country with political division. but for some reason, states (why they have any thing to do with this i dont know. votes are by people. not governments, not businesses or labor unions. but the courts seems tom disagree) and set the electors to be winner take all (dont know which party, may have been both) that basically broke the system. now i heard that some one who saw a play from a pre civil war ‘debate’ was as brutal as the ones from 2016. does that mean that we are as deeply divided as back then? maybe. or that civil war is imminent? maybe. but i dont know that any one can fix it, Trump, cant, even if he had the temperament, which he doesnt. the other side seems to have no incentive to do so. so basically we will have 1/2 the country completely opposed to any thing any wants to do, maybe even rooting for it all to be burned down (sound familiar. it should). the other unable to bring the country back together. sounds like a prescription for destruction at worst, and economic devastation at best
22. November 2016 at 11:06
Scott, You said:
“You could save us all time and trouble by stating upfront when you don’t intend to actually address those opposed to your assertions.”
I don’t respond to all comments, there are far too many.
Art, You said:
“Here we have a flag-rank officer who has served as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. That requires decades of working with people in administrative hierarchies,”
Obviously he wasn’t very good at it, as he was fired from the position.
Matthew, Yes, Trump is far more corrupt. There’s no stopping him from massively profiting from his new job.
Jpd, Yup.
Chris, You said:
“Any future politician who strongly opposes illegal immigration will be supported by these groups.”
Romney was very strongly opposed. Even said their kids should not be allowed into the public schools (a crazy position). But the far right racists were much less enthusiastic about Romney than Trump.
Now you can say that with Romney it was all just an act. I agree, but of course the same applies to Trump. Recall his impassioned, repeated statements that he’d prosecute Hillary. His campaign is now admitting that that was all a big lie. The good thing about the alt-right is that they are so dumb they don’t know when they are being conned.
You said:
“The left has been going around accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being racist during this election.”
Have you ever wondered why after disagreeing with the left on this for decades, so many conservative intellectuals suddenly agreed with them on Trump? Is your claim that Trump is no worse than other conservatives (like Romney) who the left labeled racist? What made conservative intellectuals suddenly agree with the left on this one case? For decades, the conservative movement has had contempt for political correctness. Art Deco would say I want to please my colleagues in academia, but I’m not even in academia and when I was I often took un-PC positions at the lunch table. I have no reason to suddenly agree with the left on PCism, after disagreeing for decades.
I’ve never called anyone racist for opposing illegal immigration.
Andy, No, many in those states voted for a lesser of evils. I understand your logic, but most people aren’t like you and I.
22. November 2016 at 11:20
Scott:
I like this blog post. But I wonder whether Trump’s advisers may actually welcome the public shaming. One of the best things that can happen for the Republicans’ 2020 election chances in the swing states is to have Elizabeth Warren and the “Red Horde” as Hillary called them, pontificating and protesting for the next four years.
22. November 2016 at 11:22
“One group thought that was good, the other two did not. Were they all delusional?”
Yes.
The Clinton campaign and much of the media wanted you to think of Trump as racist so he’d be more of a toxic candidate. This created confirmation bias such that you would interpret various events or quotes from Trump as racist even if they weren’t actually racist.
I agree with Scott Alexander that Trump appears to be no more racist than your typical politician is.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
22. November 2016 at 12:03
I was surprised to see that Arnold Kling praised this in November 17th on his blog:
““Globalization” and “identity politics” are a remarkable configuration of ideas, which have sustained America, and much of the rest of the world, since 1989. With a historical eye—dating back to the formal acceptance of the state-system with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648—we see what is so remarkable about this configuration: It presumes that sovereignty rests not with the state, but with supra-national organizations—NAFTA, WTO, the U.N., the EU, the IMF, etc.—and with subnational sovereign sites that we name with the term “identity.”
…When you start thinking in terms of management by global elites at the trans-state level and homeless selves at the substate level that seek, but never really find, comfort in their “identities,” the consequences are significant: Slow growth rates (propped up by debt-financing) and isolated citizens who lose interest in building a world together. Then of course, there’s the rampant crony-capitalism that arises when, in the name of eliminating “global risk” and providing various forms of “security,” the collusion between ever-growing state bureaucracies and behemoth global corporations creates a permanent class of winners and losers.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ideas-2016-214244
22. November 2016 at 12:19
Obviously he wasn’t very good at it, as he was fired from the position.
When was the last time you worked for anyone? People get run out all the time because they have bad managers, or they have policy disagreements with their managers, or they’re made the scapegoat for institutional failures. I’ve seen people who were not merely capable but the best performers on the floor get this treatment because the manager they were working for felt threatened or did not have a clue what their staff was doing all day. One of these wretched managers had her multi-year contract renewed in 2012 even though the haemorrhaging of personnel in the office was manifest and her subordinates had been waving red flags at the higher ups for years. She is still in place after serial embarrassments, including a professional employee quitting after nine months and giving a monster exit interview to HR. Her more capable predecessor was fired, by the way, in the most insulting way imaginable: she was canned after giving notice of her retirement. Some organizations are run by lousy people.
22. November 2016 at 12:22
Scott,
I don’t mean respond to all comments. I was reiterating that there’s just a list of assertions in your post, but nothing more. I realize though that his isn’t really the focal point of your life. You’re an econ blogger. I just don’t think this post will persuade anyone like me to change their opinions.
22. November 2016 at 12:25
Scott,
On a related topic, there’s talk(probably idle) about a California secession. If you think it worthy, what can we expect economically for both sides of California did secede? Also, what if all three west coast states demanded a constitutional convention to say, get rid of the Senate and electoral college, lest they secede together?
22. November 2016 at 12:28
Have you ever wondered why after disagreeing with the left on this for decades, so many conservative intellectuals suddenly agreed with them on Trump?
No, I didn’t, because I actually read National Review now and again. These people are denizens of their own small society. National Review has for a dozen years employed as managing editor an insipid creature named Steorts. Whenever Steorts offers a comment on the publication’s group blog, he is savaged by the combox denizens, and with some justice. Mr. Lowry, the publication’s editor, has failed for 15 years to recruit anyone whose prose is much better than workmanlike, and most of the academics recruited to offer occasional pieces no longer contribute. One exception is Victor Davis Hanson, who isn’t notably antagonistic to Trump. Neither is Mark Steyn, the most engaging opinion journalist to have emerged in this country in the last generation. BTW, one of Steorts’ initiatives was to cut Mark Steyn from the contributor list. You have a mess of people on stipends financed from foundations who’ve largely lost the rapport they once had with their readership.
Commentary has now decayed into a collection of elderly friends of the Podhoretz family. The median age of their regulars is about 55, and only one is under 40.
22. November 2016 at 13:19
It’s not just don’t shame the Trump voters, it’s start listening, learn some empathy and figure out what made a majority that you weren’t a part of. That will come in handy in four years when this crowd realizes how badly Trump has failed them. You can start to address their interests or watch them reach for the next worst option.
22. November 2016 at 13:29
I get what you are saying, you basically sound like my man Francis,
“How beautiful it is when people select their words and actions with care, in the effort to avoid misunderstandings, to heal wounded memories and to build peace and harmony. Words can build bridges between individuals and within families, social groups and peoples. This is possible both in the material world and the digital world. Our words and actions should be such as to help us all escape the vicious circles of condemnation and vengeance which continue to ensnare individuals and nations, encouraging expressions of hatred. The words of Christians ought to be a constant encouragement to communion and, even in those cases where they must firmly condemn evil, they should never try to rupture relationships and communication.
For this reason, I would like to invite all people of good will to rediscover the power of mercy to heal wounded relationships and to restore peace and harmony to families and communities. All of us know how many ways ancient wounds and lingering resentments can entrap individuals and stand in the way of communication and reconciliation. The same holds true for relationships between peoples. In every case, mercy is able to create a new kind of speech and dialogue. Shakespeare put it eloquently when he said: “The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed: it blesseth him that gives and him that takes” – Pope Francis, Message for the 50th World Day of Social Communications.
However it is so hard to do right now because of the awfulness of the alt-right.
I give you William Johnson (white nationalist and early Drumpf supporter) telling Richard Spencerto stop using the Nazi Salute.
Not because fascist hate mongering is evil in and of itself, but rather because it undermines the movement by reminding people of the evil to which it leads..
Johnson took aim at Spender after a video emerged from a Washington, D.C. conference over the weekend where Spencer was seen leading a room in chants of “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” while some made the Nazi salute.
“You may refer to the stiff-armed greetings as the ‘Roman Salute’ but only about 10 professors of history will catch that comparison. Or you may claim that your ‘Hail Trump’ is nothing more than ‘Hail fellow well met,’ but only about 10 professors of English follow that line of reasoning.”
The disturbing visuals, Johnson acknowledged, are a bad look for a movement trying to make mainstream gains under a Trump administration while manipulating the media to cover them as just another faction of the Republican Party.
“The term ‘alt right’ has given us a start-over moniker on which we can build a solid, positive reputation”
The future of the movement, as Johnson sees it, is an inherent ability to take supremacist ideas and inject them into a mainstream dialogue—something that’s much easier with Trump as president and Spencer not revealing his true Nazi self.
It’s very hard not to want to shame the people that enabled this crap to emerge from the sewer.
22. November 2016 at 14:16
Carl, You said:
“But I wonder whether Trump’s advisers may actually welcome the public shaming.”
Replace “But” with “And”, and I agree. “But” implies you are making an argument for shaming.
Justin, Now I see the light. My impression that Trump was acting like a racist came from “the Clinton campaign”. Not from all his public statements. Gee, why didn’t I think of that before?
TravisV, Superficially an impressive post, but when you drill down there’s really not much there.
Art Deco, So you give me an example of how Flynn is so good at working with others, and then I respond that he was fired from that job, and they you respond with what difference does it make if he can work with others? Okaaaay.
Scott, You said:
“I just don’t think this post will persuade anyone like me to change their opinions.”
I’m not trying to persuade you. I’m trying to persuade people who do not think philosophy is “mental masturbation.” And also people who would say, “Not that there’s anything wrong with mental masturbation.” Those two groups are my intended audience.
g, You said:
“It’s not just don’t shame the Trump voters, it’s start listening, learn some empathy and figure out what made a majority that you weren’t a part of.”
What “majority” are you speaking of? Certainly not a majority of voters. Actually, I did listen closely, and over and over again I heard Trumpistas say they liked how he was not a phony, how he was honest with the people, unlike other politicians. But Trump’s by far the most dishonest person ever to run for President. So what am I supposed to conclude after listening to these voters, other than that they are easily fooled?
Trump won a majority of the over $100,000/year crowd? What are they upset about? Muslim immigration?
22. November 2016 at 14:18
Student, It may be hard, but try. Hardly any Trump voters were intentionally enabling those groups.
22. November 2016 at 14:37
I have yet to read the comments, but someone please tell me Scott weighs in on whether TheMoneyIllusion.com counts as “public” in this context.
22. November 2016 at 14:56
So far this thread seems to be contest between Scott Sumner and Scott Freelander regarding the question who can be more inconsistent. Scott Sumner said we should stop shaming Trump voters but then other commentators pointed to quite some blog posts in which he indeed is shaming Trump voters. So which is it? That’s nearly Trump-style flip-flopping. Which leads to the question: Is Trump-style flip-flopping contagious?
And then there’s Scott Freelander of course who is saying about the election that “we should not be taking this personally” while a few sentences latter he proudly writes how he cut off all connections to friends and family who voted for Trump. I guess when this is Freelander’s way of “not taking it personally”, I don’t want to know what happens when he takes things personally.
And then Freelander is also attacking Scott Sumner for insulting Trump voters while at the same time he’s saying that Trump voters are “animals” (just to name one example).
So in conclusion I have to say: So far Freelander is winning this contest of stupidity by a landslide. Congratulations!
22. November 2016 at 19:11
Christian,
One can characterize a large group of people, which is insulting on one level, and then one can insult someone as an individual. I don’t mind saying I think Trumpistas are animals, because it’s true. But, I won’t insult specific individuals, because that’s another level of insult, and more importantly, because I want nothing to do with Trumpistas. Discussions with them is a total waste of time.
Perhaps you’re a Trumpista, and I missed it because I usually don’t pay attention to your posts, because you normally have nothing of value to say. Either way, you’ll now be ignored going forward.
22. November 2016 at 19:12
Scott,
Ah, I see. Yes, this post was intended for the non-empirically-oriented.
22. November 2016 at 19:14
Perhaps Scott thinks he’s being consistent here, because he doesn’t intend to shame Trumpistas most of the time, but just insult them. I guess calling them stupid, racist, etc. is merely an effort to personally degrade them, as opposed to shaming them.
22. November 2016 at 20:39
Art Deco, So you give me an example of how Flynn is so good at working with others, and then I respond that he was fired from that job, and they you respond with what difference does it make if he can work with others? Okaaaay.
He’s had a military career extending over 4 decades and earned umpteen promotions. Your contention is that he ‘can’t work with people’ because he irritated Barack Obama’s minions. If anyone ever gave you responsibility for anything more complex than a chia pet, they were ill advised.
23. November 2016 at 08:17
Bob, Not quite sure what you’re asking.
Christian, Please provide an exact quote where I shame Trump (general election) voters.