Win or lose, what does Donald Trump mean for the USA?

[Pointedstick]

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump appears to be highlighting the enormously vast divide between retro and metro, red and blue, like never before. A gigantic number of people seem to think that he is exactly what is needed for a country badly going off the rails with nobody to speak for the culturally majoritarian working and middle class, and an equal number of people seem to think that he is the second coming of Adolph Hitler bent on plunging the country into sexist, racist, xenophobic, fascist dictatorship (this is not an exaggeration).

Regardless of how I feel about Trump, I fear more than ever before for what this means for the country. It's been obvious for some time now that there are really two cultures living in parallel with one another, rarely interacting and separated by mutual animus and distrust. They seem to be able to live in a rough state of detente as long as neither needs to be confronted with the other. To a certain extent, all politics throws a monkey wrench into this equilibrium, but Trump's presence has magnified the size of the monkey wrench to elephantine proportions.

If Donald Trump wins, I truly fear for what the blue metro part of the country will experience. They already appear to be going slightly insane. These are people who can't be made too unhappy; they are important to the USA. They contribute the majority of the GDP, produce most of the entertainment and culture output, build the most of the computer software and hardware, run most of the schools and universities, do most of the scientific research, and pay most of the taxes.

And if Trump loses, I fear for what it will mean for the red retro part of the country. To them, Hillary clinton is practically the antichrist, and a Trump loss in either the primary or the general election will signal in a massive way that even if they organize and make their voices heard like never before, it is irrelevant and nobody at the federal level will step up to represent them. These people are also important to the USA. They produce most of the food, operate most of the heavy industry, manufacturing, and infrastructure, possess most of the construction and technical knowledge, own and control most of the weaponry, make up most of the military and police, and contribute most of the non-immigrant population growth.

So what does this mean for the USA? What road are we heading down, and how should we prepare ourselves for it?

[dragoncar]

What do you mean "and nobody at the federal level will step up to represent them?"  Isn't that why there is a congress?  Surely you aren't suggesting there are no republican senators?

[Pointedstick]

What do you mean "and nobody at the federal level will step up to represent them?"  Isn't that why there is a congress?  Surely you aren't suggesting there are no republican senators?

It isn't about Republican versus Democrat. A lot of Republicans are "metro." The people who are Trump supporters are incredibly angry at the Republican party and feel that this party has not represented them for 30 years or more. They feel that most if not all Republicans elected at the federal level are RINOs who are so ensconced in the blue metro world that is the natural habitat of the left that they are unable to represent their red metro constituents. Probably the closest to a representative who they like and trust and feel represents them would be Ted Cruz. And look how the GOP establishment treats him: like toxic waste. Like it or not, there are a lot of people who believe that Ted Cruz is right about everything he talks about and has been treated exceptionally unfairly by his colleagues. They don't understand why he's so hated by the people who are supported to be his allies. Same for Trump, times 10.

Because we don't have a parliamentary or proportional representation system, There is no party at the federal level that explicitly represents their interests. Instead of creating one--because that wouldn't work in our current system--they have to wait for one of the parties to be changed from within, and that's exactly what Trump and Cruz represent.

I'm not saying you have to agree with the concerns and grievances of working and middle class rural and suburban red retro America, but when a substantial fraction of an electorate feels disenfranchised, or that their political power does not equal their social, industrial, or economic power, well, you get Donald Trump.

[Greg]

What do you mean "and nobody at the federal level will step up to represent them?"  Isn't that why there is a congress?  Surely you aren't suggesting there are no republican senators?

It isn't about Republican versus Democrat. A lot of Republicans are "metro." The people who are Trump supporters are incredibly angry at the Republican party and feel that this party has not represented them for 30 years or more. They feel that most if not all Republicans elected at the federal level are RINOs who are so ensconced in the blue metro world that is the natural habitat of the left that they are unable to represent their red metro constituents. Probably the closest to a representative who they like and trust and feel represents them would be Ted Cruz. And look how the GOP establishment treats him: like toxic waste. Like it or not, there are a lot of people who believe that Ted Cruz is right about everything he talks about and has been treated exceptionally unfairly by his colleagues. They don't understand why he's so hated by the people who are supported to be his allies. Same for Trump, times 10.

Because we don't have a parliamentary or proportional representation system, There is no party at the federal level that explicitly represents their interests. Instead of creating one--because that wouldn't work in our current system--they have to wait for one of the parties to be changed from within, and that's exactly what Trump and Cruz represent.

I'm not saying you have to agree with the concerns and grievances of working and middle class rural and suburban red metro America, but when a substantial fraction of an electorate feels disenfranchised, or that their political power does not equal their social, industrial, or economic power, well, you get Donald Trump.

Do you believe the RINOs (Republican in Name only) in the Federal Level have certain reasons why they are RINOs? Is this because of wanting bigger government, or some other reasons? Just curious. Thanks.

[Pointedstick]

Do you believe the RINOs (Republican in Name only) in the Federal Level have certain reasons why they are RINOs? Is this because of wanting bigger government, or some other reasons? Just curious. Thanks.

I think it is because the government inherently attracts "elites", and the higher you go, the more elite you generally need to be to fit in with the prevailing culture of that government. Democratic elites have a lot in common with their non-impoverished constituency because those people are themselves elite or aspire to it. But Republican elites don't much resemble the decidedly non-elite people who make up most of their base. Republican elites are not the kinds of people whose jobs are threatened by immigration or outsourcing, whose children join the military, who regularly hunt or shoot guns, who enjoy using their hands to build or fix things, or for whom religion is a serious and important part of their lives. They just have the wrong personality. This mismatch is an inherent problem for anyone with no elite in them who wants to be represented by their government.

So Republican elites tend to look a lot like Democratic elites, but because they are Republicans, they are more in favor of business and war. And that's exactly what you see from most Republican elected officials at the federal level. But this is a position whose natural constituency is incredibly small. A very large fraction of the conservative base distrusts big corporations and is wary of wars that would kill their children.

And the GOP establishment is terrified because they know their power rests on borrowed time and a shaky foundation. That's why they hate Cruz and Trump so much, despite the fact that these men are some of the most popular politicians in a generation among the Republicans' base. These guys represent chinks in their armor. They know that if the base had their way, their big business connections would be hurt by protectionist economic laws and limitations on immigration. They know the military-industrial complex that funds their campaigns would be diminished by having fewer aggressive wars. They know they'd lose their access to the elite circles they run in and their asses would be booted out of office and replaced with zealous lowbrow demagogues.

[Pointedstick]

So Republican elites tend to look a like Democratic elites, but because they are Republicans, they are more in favor of business and war. And that's exactly what you see from most Republican elected officials at the federal level. But this is a position whose natural constituency is incredibly small. A very large fraction of the conservative base distrusts big corporations and is wary of wars that would kill their children.

I disagree with the "very large fraction" part.

Well, they're the people who Trump and Cruz appeal to. Combined, those two guys have about 50% of the total support.

[moda0306]

So Republican elites tend to look a like Democratic elites, but because they are Republicans, they are more in favor of business and war. And that's exactly what you see from most Republican elected officials at the federal level. But this is a position whose natural constituency is incredibly small. A very large fraction of the conservative base distrusts big corporations and is wary of wars that would kill their children.

I disagree with the "very large fraction" part.

Well, they're the people who Trump and Cruz appeal to. Combined, those two guys have about 50% of the total support.

As someone distrustful of corporations and wars, it's hard for me to believe that these are he people Trump and Cruz attract.  Trump attracts jingoistic Americans. Cruz attracts "states-rightists."  Cruz's hyperbole on Iran is ridiculous. I don't trust him for a second not to get us involved militarily in ways that are hawkish and unconstitutional. Not to mention I don't think he's a threat in the least to corporate power.

The only way trump is a risk to corporate power is if his fascistic dick wagging all over our country and others upsets an established economic order.

[Pointedstick]

The only way trump is a risk to corporate power is if his fascistic dick wagging all over our country and others upsets an established economic order.

So I'll put you in the "going slightly insane" camp, then?

I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of unhappiness at the big business status quo among ordinary, average conservatives. There is a lot of overlap with liberals on this issue, but the two party duopoly and elite bent of elected Republicans prevents it from being politically expressed on the right the way it is on the left. Rank-and-file Republicans also hold substantial protectionist views shared by liberals that are almost completely ignored by their party.

[jafs]

Interesting thread.

I agree that there's a lot of overlap on some of these issues, and it would be great if the left and right could get together on them and exert some real political pressure.

There was some discussion that Elizabeth Warren might appeal to a broad group like that.

[I Shrugged]

I agree that his popularity is telling us something, and you (PS) are basically right.  This is the first politician in ages that the regular person feels is really truly telling it like it is.  This is the old silent majority.

Obviously the left, and the establishment right, are going to be very reactionary.  Government is always reactionary, for one thing.

The level of disdain and even hatred by everyone for the people of opposite views is becoming quite alarming.  And now, EVERYTHING is seen through a political lens, usually involving blame.  Apologies to Reub for using him as an example, but I have a close friend who says the same things: everything, I mean everything, is Obama's fault.  Don't get me wrong; Obama is terrible.  But at some point we have to turn down the insult level.  The other side insults their opponents too. 

Wild predictions are cheap.  I don't know if I'm predicting it, but I am preparing mentally to see the US split in half.  Each half hates the other so much.  I think it would be peaceful, with each half saying good riddance.

[I Shrugged]

Oh, here's another thing supplied by the red states.  Soldiers.
It'd be interesting to know the breakdown.

[Pointedstick]

Oh, here's another thing supplied by the red states.  Soldiers.
It'd be interesting to know the breakdown.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-milit ... try-2014-7

[img width=500]http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... %20map.png[/img]

[jafs]

Sanders is also quite popular, and for a similar reason, I believe.

I've long thought it would be interesting to split into the "conservative" USA and the "liberal" USA so that each group could pursue their policies/plans without interference.  At the very least, I'd like to see a computer simulation of what would be likely to happen in each section.

[Pointedstick]

Wild predictions are cheap.  I don't know if I'm predicting it, but I am preparing mentally to see the US split in half.  Each half hates the other so much.  I think it would be peaceful, with each half saying good riddance.

Where would the lines be drawn, though? I feel like a geographically accurate demarcation would leave most blue metro people within little urban enclaves surrounded by an endless sea of red retro territory.

Here is how people voted for president by county in 2012, for example:

[img width=500]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on.svg.png[/img]



And the 2014 gubernatorial elections:

[img width=500]http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/ ... on-map.png[/img]



Even the county level probably hides a lot of geographic political self-segregation.

[Pointedstick]

Also, it is much easier today than, say, a generation ago to connect (albeit virtually) with like-minded people at the exclusion of others.  It is very self-reinforcing.

Yes, I think it is much easier now to create a near-perfect echo chamber out of your social circle. We all tend to generalize the rest of the world based on our social circle, so when you encounter anything outside of its usual parameters, it can seem so insane that you don't even have a frame of reference for it. People who believe or support it seem bizarre or even inhuman because you never encounter those people at all outside of the context of them being connected to something that your entire social circle is reinforcing being inappropriate, deviant, unclean, or dangerous.

I'm reminded of this:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i- ... -outgroup/

I don’t mean the sort of light-matter conservatives who go around complaining about Big Government and occasionally voting for Romney. I see those guys all the time. What I mean is – well, take creationists. According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That’s half the country.

And I don’t have a single one of those people in my social circle. It’s not because I’m deliberately avoiding them; I’m pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn’t ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist.
[...]
People like to talk about social bubbles, but that doesn’t even begin to cover one hundred quintillion. The only metaphor that seems really appropriate is the bizarre dark matter world.

I live in a Republican congressional district in a state with a Republican governor. The conservatives are definitely out there. They drive on the same roads as I do, live in the same neighborhoods. But they might as well be made of dark matter. I never meet them.

To be fair, I spend a lot of my time inside on my computer. I’m browsing sites like Reddit.
[...]
About forty percent of Americans want to ban gay marriage. [...] Recently, there was a thread on Reddit asking – Redditors Against Gay Marriage, What Is Your Best Supporting Argument? A Reddit user who didn’t understand how anybody could be against gay marriage honestly wanted to know how other people who were against it justified their position. He figured he might as well ask one of the largest sites on the Internet, with an estimated user base in the tens of millions.

It soon became clear that nobody there was actually against gay marriage.
[...]
It gets worse. My formative years were spent at a university which, if it was similar to other elite universities, had a faculty and a student body that skewed about 90-10 liberal to conservative – and we can bet that, like LW, even those few token conservatives are Mitt Romney types rather than God-n’-guns types. I get my news from vox.com, an Official Liberal Approved Site. Even when I go out to eat, it turns out my favorite restaurant, California Pizza Kitchen, is the most liberal restaurant in the United States.

I inhabit the same geographical area as scores and scores of conservatives. But without meaning to, I have created an outrageously strong bubble, a 10^45 bubble. Conservatives are all around me, yet I am about as likely to have a serious encounter with one as I am a Tibetan lama.

[Tyler]

This seems to apply here:

The leftward pressure on the Overton Window has been relentless, with conservatives reduced to applying herculean effort to simply maintain the cultural and political status quo. Yes, the Tea Party has nudged Republicans just a bit to the right, but it’s a sign of the success of the Left that a relatively unchanged GOP can be labeled as ever more extreme and “reactionary.” And few realities show this leftist success better than the fact that the Window now enables expressions of overt leftist hatred and bigotry — against Christians, against conservatives, against whites, and often against Jews. Then along came Donald Trump. On key issues, he didn’t just move the Overton Window, he smashed it, scattered the shards, and rolled over them with a steamroller. On issues like immigration, national security, and even the manner of political debate itself, there’s no window left.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... cal-debate

[Jack Jones]

Programmers and engineers are more likely to be libertarians of some sort than they are to be left-wingers.

Not where I work (East Coast).

[Libertarian666]

Programmers and engineers are more likely to be libertarians of some sort than they are to be left-wingers.

Not where I work (East Coast).

When I worked on the East Coast, that's what I found to be the case, but that was over 20 years ago, so maybe it has changed.

Or maybe both of us are just going by anecdotes rather than statistics? 

I can't find any really definitive answers, but this suggests that engineers tend to be more conservative than liberal:
http://machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers

[Pointedstick]

Programmers and engineers are more likely to be libertarians of some sort than they are to be left-wingers.

Not where I work (East Coast).

Nor I (bay area). And I would say that my colleagues are more likely to be libertarian than conservative, not more libertarian than left-wing. I know precisely one actual conservative and a few libertarians. Even together they are a tiny minority compared to the liberals.