A Deeply Fractured US

[Kirkhill]

I think you were missing Dimon's point.

Regardless of your opinion of Trump you are not going to "sell" Biden or the Democrats or rifles to anybody by calling them assholes.

Further to -

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-them-vs-us-election-elites-and-the-divide-in-american-politics-trump-db01d9e8?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

The Them-vs.-Us Election​

Not all rich people are ‘elite’—and that helps explain America’s cultural divide.​

Most Americans wouldn’t consider a banking titan a spokesman for the common man. But give JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon credit for putting his pinkie finger on the phenomenon—the divide—that best explains today’s unsettled political environment.

In an interview Wednesday with CNBC, Mr. Dimon took issue with a disconnected liberal elite that scorns “MAGA” voters. “The Democrats have done a pretty good job with the ‘deplorables’ hugging on to their bibles, and their beer and their guns. I mean, really? Could we just stop that stuff, and actually grow up, and treat other people with respect and listen to them a little bit?”

The powerful, the intellectual and the lazy have long said that the “divide” in this country is between rich and poor. They divvy up Americans along traditional lines related to wealth—college, no college, white-collar, blue-collar, income—then layer on other demographics. This framing has given us the “diploma divide” and the “new suburban voter” and “Hillbilly Elegy.” It’s sent the political class scrambling to understand Donald Trump’s “forgotten man”—again, defined economically.

That framing fails to account for the country’s unsettled electorate. There’s a better description of the shifts both between and within the parties, a split that better explains changing voter demographics and growing populist sentiments. It’s the chasm between a disconnected elite and average Americans.

This gulf is described by unique new polling from Scott Rasmussen’s RMG Research, conducted for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Mr. Rasmussen says that for more than a year he’d been intrigued by consistent outlier data from a subset of Americans, which he later defined as those with a postgraduate degree, earning more than $150,000 a year, and living in a high-density area. Mr. Rasmussen in the fall conducted two surveys of these “elites” and compared their views to everyone else.

Talk about out of touch. Among the elite, 74% say their finances are getting better, compared with 20% of the rest of voters. (The share is 88% among elites who are Ivy League graduates.) The elite give President Biden an 84% approval rating, compared with 40% from non-elites. And their complete faith in fellow elites extends beyond Mr. Biden. Large majorities of them have a favorable view of university professors (89%), journalists (79%), lawyers and union leaders (78%) and even members of Congress (67%). Two-thirds say they’d prefer a candidate who said teachers and educational professionals, not parents, should decide what children are taught.

More striking is the elite view on bedrock American principles, central to the biggest political fights of today. Nearly 50% of elites believe the U.S. provides “too much individual freedom”—compared with nearly 60% of voters who believe there is too much “government control.” Seventy-seven percent of elites support “strict rationing of gas, meat, and electricity” to fight climate change, vs. 28% of everyone else. More than two-thirds of elite Ivy graduates favor banning things like gasoline-powered cars and stoves and inessential air travel in the name of the environment. More than 70% of average voters say they’d be unwilling to pay more than $100 a year in taxes or costs for climate—compared with 70% of elites who said they’d pay from $250 up to “whatever it takes.”

This framing explains today’s politics better. While this elite is small, its members are prominent in every major institution of American power, from media to universities to government to Wall Street, and have become more intent on imposing their agenda from above. Many American voters feel helplessly under assault from policies that ignore their situation or values.

Hang tough. Abba will be around soon to give us or appropriate dosage of gruel.

 

[mariomike]

Biden is an old man too, more likely by the looks of it to die first

I think the internet betting pools on which one will die first are in poor taste.

But, this Financial Review article may be of interest to readers,

What are the chances of Biden or Trump lasting a second term?

18 Jan., 2024

What are the chances of Biden or Trump lasting a second term?

Here’s what the science of ageing has to say about a US presidential election contest between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

www.afr.com

 

[FJAG]

I think the internet betting pools on which one will die first are in poor taste.

But, this Financial Review article may be of interest to readers,



18 Jan., 2024

What are the chances of Biden or Trump lasting a second term?

Here’s what the science of ageing has to say about a US presidential election contest between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

www.afr.com

Damn paywall. Being old myself, I wanted to read that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why is defenders of Trump can't help but contrast him against the left, democrats, and/or Biden? It's like you're saying his objectionable behaviour and the dangerous cultishness of MAGA somehow gets a pass because (in your opinion) the left/Democrats/Biden are just as bad (hint; they're not).

By the way, the majority of the people calling out Trump aren't the woke left, they're the majority center left and center right.

Because they're the alternative. I get that some people want to focus on Trump and argue that he's simply unacceptable and leave out discussion of the alternative because it looks unacceptable to a lot of people, too. But that's not reality. The alternative isn't a perfect, or even merely conventional one. There are, realistically, only two alternatives. They ought to be contrasted. And they ought to be contrasted in all respects. What did the Trump administration do? If a particular policy was bad, did the Biden administration turn it around? Conversely, has the Biden administration worsened any situations?

"MAGA" is like "woke". It has no useful meaning anymore; for any two people to discuss something using either term would first require agreeing on what it means. (There was a discussion along these lines about "woke" here a while back; anyone who remembers it and took the position that yeah, people need to be specific, ought to be consistent.) Joe Biden can get up for one of his democracy-in-peril MAGA-MAGA-MAGA singalongs in front of a backdrop intended to invoke liberty and democracy, and the Idiot Chorus can nod along, but it doesn't mean anything.

So, be specific. What is it that you think "MAGA" means that places a lot more of its features in the "disadvantages" column than the things that Democrats are doing and have done recently?

 

[Baz]

So, be specific. What is it that you think "MAGA" means that places a lot more of its features in the "disadvantages" column than the things that Democrats are doing and have done recently?

"MAGA" has drawn in a lot of people because everyone is tired of "inside the beltway." On the merit alone, it is not a bad thing. It is unfortunate that it has drawn in a lot of people that only know that the "federal government is bad" and tend to subscribe to a lot of wacka-doodle ideas about why.

The problem is it is currently led by someone who doesn't actually care about "Making America Great Again" or "draining the swamp." He is a classical narcissist who only cares about himself, but "read the room" and makes a lot of promises in order to gain power around himself. The danger isn't what he is going to do, but what he is going to enable.

They are willing to tear down the entire system for those two reasons. Trump is unsalvageable in that regard, but if the general MAGA movement doesn't have a clear vision about what to replace it with, that is very, very bad.

To be fair, both the democrats and the republicans are tired old parties with tired old ideas, heavily influenced by external sources (mostly corporate America), led by tired old men. The system does have to be renewed, but MAGA isn't the one to do it properly (or probably safely).

If Biden really cared about "saving democracy" he would step aside, and lead the democrats to the renewal the people actually want. But in the absence of that, he is the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

 

[Remius]

Back to what is happening in the race.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/new-hampshire-gop-contest-narrows-into-heated-trump-vs-haley-duel-d6d42e3c

Looks like Trump gains a key endorsement. Hard to avoid the fact that it is a blow to Haley.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They are willing to tear down the entire system for those two reasons.

Meaningless. Specifics?

 

[Lumber]

If Trump is a cult, Joe Biden is Jim Jones.

 

[Baz]

Meaningless. Specifics?

They practice the politics of division solely to win. They foment a "you're either with us or against us" attitude for short term gain, with little regard for the long term implications. They actively seek out ways to circumvent 200+ years of checks and balances in order to appease their base. They play to the lowest common denominator, those people that like that he "tells it like it is" (what does that even mean) and is demeaning to everyone (because they wish they could do the same thing, and he enables them to do that in their own little world).

I'll admit my bias; I do not want to be an angry old white man. I also don't want one in charge.

The saddest part in all of this is that the Republicans (except for those who have tied their cart to Trump for personal gain) and the Democrats are not that different. But they are both willing to divide the population into two camps and pit them against each other to protect what is in effect a system that is disintegrating.

People wonder why younger generations are disengaging... why wouldn't they, seeing how the older generations are acting. I fear that my kids are going to be (rightfully) PO'd in their middle age because we f'd it up so badly.

 

[Kirkhill]

"MAGA" has drawn in a lot of people because everyone is tired of "inside the beltway." On the merit alone, it is not a bad thing. It is unfortunate that it has drawn in a lot of people that only know that the "federal government is bad" and tend to subscribe to a lot of wacka-doodle ideas about why.

The problem is it is currently led by someone who doesn't actually care about "Making America Great Again" or "draining the swamp." He is a classical narcissist who only cares about himself, but "read the room" and makes a lot of promises in order to gain power around himself. The danger isn't what he is going to do, but what he is going to enable.

They are willing to tear down the entire system for those two reasons. Trump is unsalvageable in that regard, but if the general MAGA movement doesn't have a clear vision about what to replace it with, that is very, very bad.

To be fair, both the democrats and the republicans are tired old parties with tired old ideas, heavily influenced by external sources (mostly corporate America), led by tired old men. The system does have to be renewed, but MAGA isn't the one to do it properly (or probably safely).

If Biden really cared about "saving democracy" he would step aside, and lead the democrats to the renewal the people actually want. But in the absence of that, he is the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

To draw from Marechal Foch

• My centre is giving way, my right is retreating, excellent situation, I am attacking.
• Message to Marshal Joseph Joffre during the First Battle of the Marne (8 September 1914), as quoted in Foch : Le Vainqueur de la Guerre (1919) by Raymond Recouly, Ch. 6

Far too many people in too much of the West have, within their lifetimes, gone from a secure future to no future. From being able to dream to being told they must accept limits imposed by others.

That ever increasing share of the American public that identifies as Independents reflects that population that has determined that the Centre is weak and cannot hold, that the left and right both offer no solutions they can tolerate. Their worlds are in chaos. In which case what is a little more chaos.

And the worse part is that those Independents are the ones still inclined to give the system a try. They are matched by an equal number that have never been persuaded of the benefits of the system and have never voted.

It doesn't help when meritocracy has morphed into credentialed feudalism and where your daily bread is doled out by your betters.

1381 - Wat Tyler

When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who was then the Gentleman.

Fighting against our betters has a long tradition in some places.

 

[Lumber]

Because they're the alternative. I get that some people want to focus on Trump and argue that he's simply unacceptable and leave out discussion of the alternative because it looks unacceptable to a lot of people, too. But that's not reality. The alternative isn't a perfect, or even merely conventional one. There are, realistically, only two alternatives. They ought to be contrasted. And they ought to be contrasted in all respects. What did the Trump administration do? If a particular policy was bad, did the Biden administration turn it around? Conversely, has the Biden administration worsened any situations?

"MAGA" is like "woke". It has no useful meaning anymore; for any two people to discuss something using either term would first require agreeing on what it means. (There was a discussion along these lines about "woke" here a while back; anyone who remembers it and took the position that yeah, people need to be specific, ought to be consistent.) Joe Biden can get up for one of his democracy-in-peril MAGA-MAGA-MAGA singalongs in front of a backdrop intended to invoke liberty and democracy, and the Idiot Chorus can nod along, but it doesn't mean anything.

So, be specific. What is it that you think "MAGA" means that places a lot more of its features in the "disadvantages" column than the things that Democrats are doing and have done recently?

@Remius is doing most of my work for me but I'll add two thing to illustrate the differences.

First, the name. As you pointed out, there is significant debate about the meaning of Woke. Officially, it just means that you are aware that despite legal racism/discrimination no longer existing there is still significant system, structural and cultural racism/discrimination that negatively affects minorities. The other definition is "anything aggressively progressive" (and now basically anything progressive at all). Here's the thing, while its the 2nd definition that has become more common, the it was the right that came up with it, its the right that uses it, and its the right that refused to accept (or admit) that its an incorrect and unfair definition Conversely, MAGA is the name for a nativist political movement who's name is embraced by those who came up with it (the MAGA themselves).

Second thing: cultish loyalty. Those on the left all supported Biden as the saviour from Trump. Then Biden went and backed Israel against Gaza. Suddenly, the most "woke left" in the US legislature have turned on Biden, some going so far as to threaten to vote Trump. To MAGA supporters, on the other hands, Trump can do no harm. I can't tell you the number of interview with Trumps supporters who have literally said he was sent by god and that nothing he could do would ever take away their support.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They practice the politics of division solely to win. They foment a "you're either with us or against us" attitude for short term gain, with little regard for the long term implications. They actively seek out ways to circumvent 200+ years of checks and balances in order to appease their base. They play to the lowest common denominator, those people that like that he "tells it like it is" (what does that even mean) and is demeaning to everyone (because they wish they could do the same thing, and he enables them to do that in their own little world).

Which party are you talking about? Have you contrasted a typical Biden speech with his "uniter" rhetoric shortly after assuming office (or any of Obama's typical speech templates - "why don't you Republicans and conservatives stop being awful people just long enough to vote for our legislation")? Are you unaware that it's the Democratic party that has led on reducing the Senate filibuster thresholds and are arguing to remove the last one; that it's Democrats who are interested in packing the USSC; that it's Democrats that are the most hostile to the 1A and 2A; that it was Obama that side-stepped the constitution on DACA after saying he didn't have the constitutional authority; that it's Biden who is trying to make a huge one-time cash giveaway to people with student loans despite stumbling over the constitutional niggle that Congress authorizes expenditures? Does Harry Reid's false suggestion about Mitt Romney's taxes count as "solely to win"?

What is the point of accusations that fit both parties?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Conversely, MAGA is the name for a nativist political movement who's name is embraced by those who came up with it (the MAGA themselves).

You have just described two identical situations. A group comes up with a name or description, and then people broaden it and turn it into a pejorative.

"Nativist political movement" isn't very specific, and what is it that you think the phrase means? The anti-immigration sentiment in the US is overwhelmingly against illegals. Limited and discriminatory immigration policy surely isn't discreditable - Canada practices it openly.

 

[Baz]

The saddest part in all of this is that the Republicans (except for those who have tied their cart to Trump for personal gain) and the Democrats are not that different. But they are both willing to divide the population into two camps and pit them against each other to protect what is in effect a system that is disintegrating.

What is the point of accusations that fit both parties?

Did you only see the parts of what I said that fits a narrative of what you think my opinion is?

Absolutely the narrative fits both parties. I literally said that is the reason for the rise of "MAGA." People are tired of the current system. There needs to be a change.

But, Trump is not the answer. As I said, he "read the room" and he is taking advantage of the situation for his own personal gain. His rhetoric and labelling anything that is against him as "fake news" is enabling things to get worse.

The point of accusations that fit both parties is that the majority need to stand up and say enough is enough. Some Americans are at each other's throats over a bunch of BS, given the Democrats and the Republicans don't actually represent anything that different from one another, except for the extreme wings of each.

The same applies in Canada. Both Trudeau and PP are practicing the politics of division, and I personally don't think either of them is capable of actually leading us out of the mess we have allowed them to create.

 

[Baz]

The anti-immigration sentiment in the US is overwhelmingly against illegals.

Cite a source. Here's one that doesn't agree with you I found in 30 seconds: Gallop Immigration

 

[Brad Sallows]

Did you only see the parts of what I said that fits a narrative of what you think my opinion is?

When you continue using "they" after establishing "They are willing to tear down the entire system" in reference to Trump supporters, I can only assume you are continuing to talk about "them".

It should be obvious that weaknesses shared by parties and politicians aren't a basis for choosing between them.

As for Trump, if he declined to spend the $400B that NPR reported as the cost of Biden's intended student loan giveaway, then at $250M per day saved, as a US taxpayer I would be content to ignore him blackguarding people and institutions all day long. Water off a duck's back. The point is that people weight factors differently.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cite a source. Here's one that doesn't agree with you I found in 30 seconds: Gallop Immigration

And which point is it making with respect to how illegal and legal immigration are perceived?

I'm in favour of reduced legal immigration in Canada right now, so I don't know what opinions about the desirability of more or less immigration are supposed to mean.

 

[Baz]

I’m not going to try and convince you of anything, because my opinion is irrelevant to you. And conversely, I feel that you have tied your horse to Trump et al to solve problems you believe need solving, and therefore your opinion is irrelevant to me.

I do think, based on historical precedent, that the current politics of division is playing with fire, and the true majority need to stand up and stop it before it gets out of hand. I don’t know what I can do to help make that happen, but I do know, from experience, that an Internet forum is never going to solve any of this.

However, I am also deeply worried that so many people think Trump is the answer, when it is obvious to me that he will do almost anything to feed his narcissism. We do need a true leader that is not tied to the system to stand up, but it isn’t him.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m not going to try and convince you of anything, because my opinion is irrelevant to you. And conversely, I feel that you have tied your horse to Trump et al to solve problems you believe need solving, and therefore your opinion is irrelevant to me.

I do think, based on historical precedent, that the current politics of division is playing with fire, and the true majority need to stand up and stop it before it gets out of hand. I don’t know what I can do to help make that happen, but I do know, from experience, that an Internet forum is never going to solve any of this.

However, I am also deeply worried that so many people think Trump is the answer, when it is obvious to me that he will do almost anything to feed his narcissism. We do need a true leader that is not tied to the system to stand up, but it isn’t him.

Baz, a bunch of people have come to the conclusion that the Messiah isn't coming anytime soon. A foul-mouthed serial adulterer will have to do. And trust will be placed in the institutions that were put in place to manage incompetent bastards intent of taking over the world, or at least the US.

And I have faith in those institutions - specifically in "These United (but independent) States". Both parties are Federalists when they are in power and Separatists (in the Congregationalist sense) when they aren't.

Many Puritans believed the Church of England should follow the example of Reformed churches in other parts of Europe and adopt presbyterian polity, in which an egalitarian network of local ministers cooperated through regional synods.[9] Other Puritans experimented with congregational polity both within the Church of England and outside of it. Puritans who left the established church were known as Separatists.[10]

Congregational church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a policeman in Victoria recently noted the police can shut down a one-person protest. A 500 person protest, a congregation or a state, is another matter entirely. In the Canadian context - Quebec can't be punished when it is naughty. Likewise Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Trump couldn't impose uniformity if he wanted. Neither, for that matter, could Biden or Obama.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trump isn't the answer. But right now he's the only alternative to status quo, unless either average Republican-backing Americans give into the Republican establishment and back the latter's preferred candidate (Haley), or the establishment concedes and backs DeSantis. And then it's still an uphill fight. Given the arrogant "we're taking our ball and going home" behaviour of the establishment, I suppose the first option isn't really on the table.

For 2024, US projected per capita deficit is $4,500, and Canada's is $1,000. What has happened in Canada with the "guns vs butter" debate is obvious by inspection. We've essentially become powerless, are being sidelined in and excluded from the premier councils of the world, and have no money to fix the problem - instead, we're borrowing heavily. The US occupies a much higher position to start and would have to fall for a while before becoming noticeably weak and will still never reach our position, but as that progresses, the world as a whole will become less secure. No-one else who shares our interests is in a fiscal situation to step up and replace the US presence wherever it fades.

We're in the period where, after a crisis, people look back and say, "Those were the warning signs." Actual crises happen suddenly, producing numbers that look almost like singularities when charted over time. That won't necessarily happen. Usually the people with power and authority manage to muddle through. Sometimes they don't, and we get world wars and great depressions, or just prolonged periods of lower-level conflict and occasionally brutal recessions.

When the party ends, all the people who are hawks on foreign and defence policy and think that Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris) and the Democrats and the old Republican establishment have got their backs, are going to be disappointed. US voters are foremost going to demand an end to foreign aid, and they're going to take the side of "butter". Example: US social security becomes insolvent sometime around 2033, with current law implying there will be roughly a 20% cut to benefits. (The articles that say "Akshully, social security won't go bankrupt" are arguing the difference between a cut and complete zeroing out.) The projected shortfall is around $450B in 2033. With the total federal deficits already projected to be around $1500B for the next few years, that amount looks to be a 1/3 lift - substantial. At least that probably all happens after the fate of Ukraine is decided, but we can be sure there won't be much aid for another Ukraine. There might not even be enough to prevent NATO from writing off its easternmost members. Appeasement is always the attractive course for those unwilling to fight, or incapable.

If the Democrats and polite Republicans were capable of solving the fiscal problems, I suppose they would have. So they can't, or won't. So out-of-the-box solutions must be tried. If a crude narcissistic unfocused egomaniacal selfish bully is part of the key to distracting the White House (at least) from coming up with new ideas for more spending and "military intervention" as the first Republican solution to every problem, so be it.