The Trump Democrats
My Twitter account has done especially well since my move from Arizona; I, of course, didn't tweet very much over the week bridging my move, but lately I've been averaging better than 3000 impressions a day and my followers account for at most a minor percentage of those. As I type, I have an ongoing streak of 8 tweets with over 100 impressions (the high of which is just under 400). Now I knew these numbers may not impress a lot of people--for many people with extensive networks or followers like Trump, my numbers are barely a rounding error. It has more to do with the kinds of tweets; I am being favorited and retweeted by people who don't know me, not to mention provoking Trumpkins, leftists, and neo-Nazis into reply tweets along the way. My current streak involves reactions to a Washpo piece on Trump Democrats. Now, as my familiar readers know, I did not support either Clinton or Trump; I'm currently a registered Libertarian, but I do admire some Republicans like Amash, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tom Massie, and Ben Sasse. So the fact that anything I said on the topic of Trump Democrats got more than a handful of views is impressive, at least to me.I probably play too many hashtag games, which probably irritates some followers. And I'm fairly blunt; since nobody agrees with my positions across the board, it's a wonder I have any following at all. But for all that success, it hasn't really resulted in a surge of followers; I'm probably flat over the summer. And occasionally I'll do a handful of reply tweets. I've mentioned in the past that I don't go around trolling for "progressives" or Trumpkins to bash. Usually I just scan down a trending hashtag. Sometimes the tweeter is just stepping on a pet peeve; a common anti-Trump one is "I remember when we had a real President (Obama)." Or it's just another copy-and-paste tweet over "Russian collusion" in the election. Granted, if I'm in a bad mood, I'm less likely to let a bad tweet go. I don't have the time or patience to critique every dumb tweet I see on Twitter. I have tried to temper name-calling, although even if and when I say 'idiot', it's not really just a personal attack--I'm following it up with a salient point. And God knows the trolls who flame me back aren't being constructive.
But to give you a sample reply tweet, some guy is lashing back at the Washpo piece, thinking it's some sort of putdown on Trump Democrats. Actually, if I were to summarize the piece, it's that the Dems have a serious problem that goes beyond the defections to Trump, and if they don't deal with it, their prospects in 2018 and 2020 aren't very good. These Dems defected to Trump because they thought Clinton was just another politician paying lip service to their concerns, she's been just another fast-talking politician who cuts deals with powerful interests over the interests of the common folk. So I'm saying back, "Dude! Did you bother reading the article before trashing it?" The article wasn't bashing the Trump Dems, but warning a Democratic Party out of touch with its own base. I'm sure that thousands of Tweeters don't read articles they are commenting on and are making false inferences; I'm not the policeman of Twitter. (I sometimes tweet in a thread of an article I haven't read, but I won't directly criticize the article without making a good faith effort to read it: I'm usually referencing other comments in the thread.)
I'm not going to republish my relevant tweets here (see my next miscellany post), but here I want to draw a bigger picture than I can in a medium of 140 characters at a time. I still don't understand the mystery of Trump's appeal: to me, it's obvious that he's little more than a self-serving manipulative salesman seeking power and willing to say or do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. He has shown little familiarity or depth on public policy. He has a fairly thin skin (even defending the size of his manhood in a public debate) and engages in derogatory name-calling and bullying; he comes across as a hot head, even carrying his Rosie O'Donnell feud into debates, threatening Comey, taking shots at his own attorney general. He has no authentic populism or respect for individual rights: he once tried to exercise eminent domain to get an old lady's home so he could create parking for limos, and he opposes civil asset forfeiture reform (which seeks to seize assets without evidence of crime). This whole anti-Establishment angle is disingenuous; Trump spent his whole career dealing with politicians, getting political favors, contributing to campaigns, etc., as a real estate developer. (He even bragged that Hillary Clinton, who he had supported during her Senate and first Presidential campaigns, attended his third wedding.) It seems far from being this incorruptible, apolitical force, he's had a seat at the table cutting deals for the benefit of his business projects: part of the problem, not its solution.
I think some people buy into his self-promotion as a business success and job creator, although he's had 6 bankruptcies resulting from taking on too much high-interest financing. I also think some people buy into his dubious claim that his wealth makes him invulnerable to corruption. Maybe it's because I've caught talented students cheating, and they argued the same line: they didn't need to cheat to succeed. I'm not a psychologist, but I go to where the facts lead me. Why did they do it? Maybe it was the challenge of trying to get away with it. Napoleon wasn't satisfied with his military success in continental Europe; he wanted to conquer Russia. We have the obvious success story of Bernie Madoff, who at one point had a multi-billion dollar fortune before his Ponzi scheme exploded.
Some time back (2014) it was revealed most federal legislators were millionaires. So I've never been one who really thought that these populist "eat your own dog food" measures, e.g., force Congressmen to enroll in ObamaCare (vs. their federal employee plan). If your net worth is nearly 20 times or more of the average household, you aren't facing the same issues: you have a job until the next election, no matter what happens to the economy. And as President, one has few personal expenses, mostly stuff like (non-official) food, clothes, private parties at the WH, private property taxes, etc. Currently he draws a $400K salary, $100K travel, $19K entertainment and $50K expense account (some non-salaried compensation is nontaxable); of course, he doesn't pay rent or for WH staff. Now the reason I'm mentioning that is because a President is even more shielded from the normal pressures of the average household. You may disagree with a President's policies, but arguing that preexisting wealth somehow would make Trump more virtuous and/or sensitive to his constituent households seems dubious. What he really wanted to do was argue that his opponents were intrinsically corrupt because they were politicians, but that's like saying a whore is corrupt but not her john.
I'm a NeverTrumper, and I will always be. All of what I've said doesn't take away from the fact that Trump won last fall's election and in part he won with the support of many Democrats who had voted for Obama, despite radioactive approval numbers. Why? I know few Trump Democrats, and even if I knew any, my observations would be anecdotal at best. So all I can do is explain what I think happened (and this extends beyond Trump Democrats):
- It was a swing election year which naturally favors the opposition party.
- Many Democrats had been frustrated that their economic circumstances hadn't improved much during Obama's 2 terms in office: few raises, little job security. They are approaching retirement with limited assets; their kids are struggling to pay off college loans and finding bleak career prospects. Their healthcare expenses are increasing faster than their ability to pay them off.
- The Democratic Party has run dated campaigns targeted at key constituent groups, not the struggling household.
- Trump ran on an economic nationalist campaign (based on absolutely false economics) that job losses were due to immigrant competition and trade imports and somehow he would reverse things with autarkic policies.
The Democrats would no doubt argue that they have a long history of being labor protectionists (recall the outsourcing attacks on Romney back in 2012) and anti-trade pact (most fought Clinton over NAFTA). They also have been pushing infrastructure investment (a priority for their key labor union constituency). So why was Clinton's message not resonating?
Part of it has to do with Clinton's personal flaws, her horrible unfavorable ratings, her Senate career backing Wall Street, her 6-figure speaking engagements, and the bitter aftermath of a contested nomination campaign . Clinton also made some abrupt flip-flops (e.g., she had backed TPP as Secretary of State) and came across as untrustworthy and self-serving. Clinton has also disparaged Trump supporters (famously, as deplorables), and when Clinton spend a disproportionate time bashing Trump vs. outlining a constructive practical agenda, it was more "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
I think there was Clinton fatigue, which should have been anticipated by Jeb Bush's hapless campaign. And I also think that the Democratic Party platform is badly dated, over 40 years old running the same issues. Voters probably saw nothing much from the Obama Presidency in dealing with an opposition Congress and could anticipate much the same under a Clinton Presidency. If there was going to be a change, it might come from a wheeler-dealer Trump coming to terms with a GOP-led Congress.
This is largely speculative. I am equally opposed to economic interventionism from the left or the right (with Trump). The free market is the only and the best solution for resolving customer wants and needs, spontaneous action, not top-down centralized planning. We libertarians have a problem of showing things unseen, opportunity costs: what would health care be without the Great Society creation of Medicare/Medicaid, state and federal regulations of community rating and guaranteed issue?
