Recent Article for Understanding Trump Supporters

I'm struck immediately by the similarity of Brexitry and Trumpery. It seems to me that the Left has died. This is the neo-Marxian analysis; that the power base of the left has always been the factory floor, where labour has the opportunity to organise collective resistance to the dictates of capital. Robots do not have such interests, and so the 'liberal left' has become in practice a rhetoric without content. The left is now the right with added sentimental nostalgia. No one is responsible, it's all determined by historical necessity.

I would supplement this gloomy view with a psychological concept due to David Smail - of a personal event horizon. One looks to explain one's life in order to improve it, but one has recourse only to one's own experiences. Thus if one suffers loss of job, status, power, stability, one looks for the causes in one's own life and one's own community. Whereas the real efficient causes often lie far beyond the horizon on individual experience. One has no experience of the games of fund managers and the like, and it is hard to see how they result in one self-employed carpenter finding less work and less pay for the work he does. It 'must' be factors within his experience, or there is no hope for him. Hence the idea, readily endorsed by those 'efficient causes' that the migrant worker is responsible.

Reply to unenlightened

How did you get to the conclusion that the rise of Trump lead to the Left to die? I have the opposite perception with regards to the election, largely due to the Sanders phenomenon. Trump only brought to the surface what was always there, which is why if you look at the other Republican candidates, they're all similar or worse than he is. They just use rhetoric that doesn't appear as offensive to the mainstream press.

Reply to Saphsin

The Left in the sense of the political force which has the lives of working class at its heart. Nowadays the Left appeals to the rich/elite/comfortable with a social conscious more so than it does advocate for the economic well-being of the working class. Even Sanders is more or less of this category. He might talk about some socialist economic policies, but these a distant from the lives and identities of the working class who's livelihood have disappeared with globalisation and mechanisation in the last forty years.

Strictly speaking, the Left isn't dead. It's just stopped being an expression of the working classes like it used to. Now it speaks in terms of the socially conscious (e.g. issues racism, sexism, even the "capitalist system" ) rather than in terms of worker's identity and livelihoods (e.g. provision of services, worker's rights, protecting the economic means of the working person).

Trump has only brought out what was more or less already there, but the point is many of the people he appeals to were not being served by the Left anyway. Not even with promises of "socialism," because the economic and political conditions have severed the link between "socialism" and the livelihoods of sections of the working class. Trump isn't leading the Left to die. In this context, the Left is already dead and has been for decades.

No, Trump supporters should not be ridiculed; neither should Clinton nor Sanders supporters. The objects of support, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and every other politician, richly deserve ridicule, confrontation, and severe criticism for their campaigns of convenient silences, lies and misinformation.

The overarching cause of the economic malaise from which at least 75%*** of The People are suffering, now going on some 40 years, is the upward redistribution of economic resources. Workers are keeping less and less of the wealth they create, the top 5% is gaining more and more for themselves. Greedy behavior is to be expected and at various times Congress has restricted it's blatant operation somewhat. During those times, and when the economy was expanding, most people felt like they were getting a somewhat fairer share of reward for their labor.

When greed gets a green light (in the form of favorable tax law and loose financial supervision) and when the economy isn't expanding very much or is contracting, the average person loses even more of what little they have.

NAFTA and existing or proposed trade pacts do not exist for the benefit of most people. They are structured to benefit the wealth-owning classes. Indeed, a lot of the laws on the books are there to benefit the wealthy.

The average Joe may not have economic theory in his back pocket, but his personal experiences (personal event horizons or not) are real. Most people are not negatively affected by free movement of labor. Their jobs are not threatened. Those who fill jobs at the bottom of the job market, though, are immediately and negatively affected.

What affects more people above the lower layers of labor are automation, robotics, off-shoring production to areas of very cheap labor, and unfavorable restructuring of jobs. In the US, white and black guys who used to do roofing for a living were displaced by illegal immigrants who undercut the going wage. Automation displaces the factory worker. Outsourcing displaces the customer service worker or production line worker. Computerization eliminates white collar jobs. Selective hiring of skilled immigrants can reduce professional opportunities for citizens.

Those who have reasonably decent incomes can buy more stuff for less. Those who can't buy food don't benefit from ever cheaper cars, TVs, washing machines, or phones.

So no. Don't ridicule the people who are earnestly searching for someone who will represent their real interests. Is Trump the One? Oh, maybe for some he will deliver a little. Clinton? She'll deliver a little here and there. The Republic and Democratic Party? Don't hope for much; they sleep in one single bed. They're busy fucking... you.

***If 25% in the US are doing OK, that's 80 million. 240 million are not doing so well.

Is Trump really a Republican? If so, the party doesn't seem to be supporting him as one, (and most supporters keep saying he is an "outsider"). If not, then the Republican party might actually be sitting this election out and we are looking at essentially a no-contest election, (which is usually considered a sign of dictatorship in other countries). That means the Right is dead, and the "Left" has simply taken up the "center".

I agree that the media is making a big mistake by considering all of Trump's followers as racists, or as CNN keeps claiming that they "angry". But it even though the article points out that the number of followers are too complex to stereotype, The best you can pin down is that there are a lot of different dreams that people think Trump is going to bring about. I've heard from Evangelicals who think he is going to bring about a Christian theocracy where the Constitution is overthrown in favor of the 10 Commandments, (even Pat Robertson has declared him an true born-again Christian). Those people in the article think he will get rid of immigrants, but his policy is impossible to pin down or seems to be possible to implement without declaring martial law and suspending civil rights. I don't think people are sad or angry, but frustrated by a lot of confused emotions -- and probably a lot of "projection" of those feelings onto some objectification of that confusion.

Quoting Saphsin

How did you get to the conclusion that the rise of Trump lead to the Left to die?

Other way round. The end of heavy industrial work leads to loss of power for the working class, which leads to the take over of left political parties by corporate interests. And that lack of political voice leads to Trump. The irony is that to the extent that capital still needs labour at all, if the wall prevents the migration of labour, capital will simply migrate to where there is cheap labour.

Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness

Eh, I disagree very strongly some of what you said. I think a far better account of what really happened is that there has more recently been a collapse of the neo-liberal consensus and that has what resulted in the resurgence of the new left movement as well a friend has called neo-nationalism from the right regarding Trump. I think you're ignoring the rise of Corbyn, and the treatment of Sanders I find very unconvincing. Sanders' plan is to create a massive jobs program in response to deindustrialization, and is absolutely about "[the] provision of services, worker's rights, [and] protecting the economic means of the working person" His comments about Democratic Socialism were marginal and off to the side in most of his speeches if hardly mentioned, except when the media brings it up. In any case, his version of Democratic Socialism was more like Social Democratic Reform rather than Socialism as it pertains to Leftist's concerns about Capitalism.

If you were talking primarily about the decline of the labor movement, I think there would be more truth, but even there the story is more complicated. Labor is weakened, but it's not dead yet.

Quoting unenlightened

to the extent that capital still needs labour at all

This is a perplexing problem from a couple of angles.

Clearly, massed labor is not needed in many places, though it is needed in some. Per-unit cost is much lower in regions where still-necessary labor is relatively inexpensive (Asia). Efficient transportation (big container ships) tie production and consumption together. Manufacture in the US still exists, but it tends to be in high-end areas like tool and die cutting, design, and the like. We also still mine, and farm--but with automation. Administration (bureaucratic functions) is abundant.

The US is a big economy, so is Japan, Europe, China, India (growing), and the rest. Increasingly, economies produce goods (and services more often) through computerized, automated, mechanized methods. A lot of people around the world are economically superfluous.

My dated understanding of economic functioning is that the foundation of an economy is production and consumption. If very large portions of the population are not involved in production, they cannot consume very much. "We haven't any money so there is nothing we can buy." (Candide the musical)

Where are we headed? It seems like we are already in a world of extravagantly wealthy and privileged world elites sitting on top of an extinct (or merely 'inactive') volcano of surplus people who have no function or power.

Marx already envisaged such a post-labour environment, in which meaningful work ceases to be a burden and becomes a need. I'm inclined to read the communist maxim he popularized "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." as rooted in the Aristotelian tradition of the polis as the place in which truly human life emerges as opposed to one particular political project (communism). Neo-liberalism can be broadly characterized by the maxim "To each according to his abilities.". Broadly speaking what is described in America today as the left is concerned with fostering those abilities, while the right is concerned with maximizing what the individual can take (and keep) through the exercise of those abilities. This is the contradictory American dream. Obviously the expansion of government required to foster abilities is here pitted against the individual's "right" to take and keep as much as possible. The right's disillusion with the Republican establishment has much to do with their apparent inability or unwillingness to shrink government.

The typical Trump supporter finds himself with a marginalized life, and what scraps of meaning his life retains is threatened by change, especially globalization and immigration (at least in his mind). I think Obama is largely right here in that the ultimate cause of these disruptions is technology, although I don't think his singling out of automation is warranted. Regardless, these people - especially the middle-aged whites - are not thriving, and in many cases really need help: just not the kind that Trump can deliver. Trump's promise to hit the reset button - "Make America great again." - is of course an empty promise. Given their often dysfunctional lives and lack of critical thinking skills I find it hard to muster any democratic respect for their leaning.

Reply to photographer Excellent post.

I'm about to start reading "White Trash: The 400 year untold history of class in America. Nancy Isenberg. I don't know if it will be good; one reviewer said yes, one reviewer said no. It's not about early trailer parks; it's about how working class whites have been managed since Europeans started settling North America. It's apparently not a pretty picture, leading one to think not only America isn't great right now, for a lot more people than we thought, it was never great. A lot of the ancestors of todays Trump supporters were, of course, the kind of riff raff they'd probably rather not associate with. Mayflower type ancestors are one thing, indentured scullery wenches and wood choppers are something else.

Quoting Saphsin

Labor is weakened, but it's not dead yet.

Man, how far from dead do you think it is? It hasn't shown much life, lately. (Granted, there have been a few twitches, suggesting that the soul and body have not yet parted.)

The view I take on this is that the Democrats are the leading cultural force in America, and the left is the leading cultural force in the world. The right, and Republicans, in America, hate their opponents with resentment, while the left, and Democrats, hate their opponents with snobbery. The condescension in the article, and in this thread, speaks to that -- whatever the disagreements, the leftists do not see rightists as genuine people capable of thinking in the same way they are. That's the bottom line. And once in a while you get populist revolts against that sentiment, which are promptly put down by the ruling class, and their 'plantation voters' (ethnic minorities). I don't think economics has that much to do with it.

Perhaps a bit off the topic or maybe prior to the topic, I simply chalk it up to the Dunning–Kruger effect when it comes to understanding Trump supporters as well as Donald Trump himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The song from NOFX... "The Idiots Have Taken Over", applies just as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqLVeP7iHA

Either or... I sort of think that the election has fought upon the foundation of negative evidence against a candidate rather than positive evidence as to why someone should support a candidate.

I still keep thinking the mantra in our society is "where is the lie which means I've been lied to", which serves as a means to an end of playing the blame game; thus feeling self-justified about one's self and out sourcing all problems, as all problems are attributed to the supposed lie one is searching for to justify that one has been lied to and so on...

As for ridicule...

... it's allowed only if what is presented is ridiculous.

The question is now, just how much of this election has not been ridiculous?

Meow!

GREG

To understand Trump supporters it is only necessary to consider what it is to be envious, jealous and xenophobic.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

To understand Trump supporters it is only necessary to consider what it is to be envious, jealous and xenophobic.

No, that's too simple.

Xenophobia, racism, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and like terms may describe features of some people's thinking, emotional reactions, and behavior, but they have been emptied of most of their descriptive utility by intense over-use. The terms have become the means for dismissing the dissatisfactions of those who do not match the biases of the term-dispensing person.

To envious and jealous one might also add frightened, angry, disillusioned, disappointed, confused, misinformed, and so forth--which they, we, individually, might or might not be.

Trump's, Sanders', and Clinton's supporters, and all those who feel they have no real stake in the parties or the election are all, really, at the same difficult point: We all have got to come up with some good answers to what seem like insoluble problems, and soon: How are we going to actually redistribute concentrated wealth? Or even, should we? How are we going to reduce CO2 emissions a lot and soon without crashing the economies we all depend on? Or are we? How are we going to reduce individual and large scale violence in a world as well armed (pistols to ICBMs, bullets to hydrogen bombs) as this one is? Or, will we? Is there going to be anything left over for us, for me?

We've all been jacked around by the media, the politicians, the business interests, labor interests, an infinity of well-organized and narrow special interests, and so on. It's damned hard to know who to trust.

I'm a Trump supporter, so let me tell you why I support him. Hillary's a liar. The left's general plan is to give stuff away. We have no consistent immigration enforcement, yet we have very clear laws setting out what our immigration policy is supposed to be. Wanting to remain a sovereign nation is not equivalent to being xenophobic. No one is as sensitive in their daily lives as the media demands everybody be. And the biggest reason of all: there are no other Republican choices. I was a Kasich supporter, but he's not around anymore.

You guys sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Trump is like me sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Sanders. It's obvious. You guys are just wrong about everything you believe in.

Reply to Hanover
Immigration from Mexico has been zero (or negative) in recent years, so you would elect a buffoon with fascist tendencies (who's as big a liar as Hilary, if not moreso) over a competent politician with decades of experience in public service in order to address a non-problem.

Republicans: the party of absolute conformity. For all their bluster of being the "patriotic" party, they never fail to put party over country, which is exactly what a vote for Trump would be.

(BTW, I fully agree that a sovereign nation has the right to enforce its borders (in a humane fashion), but Trump has offered no plan for border enforcement which is remotely realistic. The main points of his "plan" consist of building a wall which somehow Mexico will be made to finance, and then rounding up and deporting the 12 million or so illegal immigrants who are already here. Good luck with that.)

Reply to Arkady The question was why people vote for Trump. You think those reasons are stupid, but that doesn't address the question. You're not saying that's not why they vote for Trump.

By analogy: People pray to God so that the sick will be healed. You think that's stupid. Nevertheless, that's why people pray.

I concede Trump's buffoonery to a large extent, but I must choose between two evils, and I've picked my poison.

Quoting Hanover

The question was why people vote for Trump. You think those reasons are stupid, but that doesn't address the question.

No, it doesn't. I wasn't in fact responding to the OP's question, which was ably answered by others on this thread. I was responding to your post, in which you demonstrated that, like so many other Republicans, you put party before country, despite all of the declarations of being an unapologetic "flag-waving American," or whatever your motto is. (The old joke is that Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line, and the Grand Old Party hasn't disappointed this time around, either, which is to say that they remain a disappointment.)

I'm not voting for Hillary (largely because I don't live in a swing state. I strongly dislike her so no point in calculating the lesser of two evils.) but there's hardly a reason to suspect that Trump is any less a liar or flip flopper than Hillary is.[1] They have the same or similar financial & foreign policy advisors.[2] Trump wants to build a border wall, Hillary wants to build a border fence.[3] Trump is likely to also support the TPP because his connection with TPP lobbyists despite his previous rhetoric.[4]

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

2.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/trump-names-former-partner-at-goldman-sachs-as-new-national-finance-chairman/

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/18/beacon-global-strategies/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/30/president-trump-us-war-machine-rolls-on/

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE8DD6q6EF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uXJ1mgkyF0

4. https://theintercept.com/2016/06/29/trump-team-tpp/

Quoting Hanover

I'm a Trump supporter, so let me tell you why I support him. Hillary's a liar. The left's general plan is to give stuff away. We have no consistent immigration enforcement, yet we have very clear laws setting out what our immigration policy is supposed to be. Wanting to remain a sovereign nation is not equivalent to being xenophobic. No one is as sensitive in their daily lives as the media demands everybody be. And the biggest reason of all: there are no other Republican choices. I was a Kasich supporter, but he's not around anymore.

You guys sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Trump is like me sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Sanders. It's obvious. You guys are just wrong about everything you believe in.

Yes, Hilary is a liar, and she has other serious faults too. But Trump is worse. He's like a more extreme, less intelligent Nigel Farage. I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote for Hilary as the lesser of two evils, hypothetically speaking of course, since I'm not American and can't vote. America is in a lose-lose situation. Voting for the lesser of two evils is one thing - and I can relate and sympathise with your position to the extent that the candidate that you favoured was better but didn't make it, because I'm in the same position - but to actually support Trump should leave you feeling dirty.

Quoting Sapientia

but to actually support Trump should leave you feeling dirty.

The American system is a rigid two party system, and with the internal Senate rules requiring a 60% supermajority to bring anything to a vote, it will be impossible for anything much to pass. Add into the mix that the House will be Republican and the Senate likely Democrat, nothing will ever pass. That means that whether it's Trump or Clinton, it will be 4 years of gridlock, which is the way the system was set up. It intentionally protects the status quo, especially in times of great disagreement.

The big issue is who will be placed on the Supreme Court. The judiciary, an entire branch of government, hangs in the balance, with the current split being a 4-4 conservative/liberal. So, for that reason, I'll vote for Trump so that the courts will remain conservative. The appointments made by the next President could affect the country for decades.

Quoting Hanover

The American system is a rigid two party system, and with the internal Senate rules requiring a 60% supermajority to bring anything to a vote, it will be impossible for anything much to pass. Add into the mix that the House will be Republican and the Senate likely Democrat, nothing will ever pass. That means that whether it's Trump or Clinton, it will be 4 years of gridlock, which is the way the system was set up. It intentionally protects the status quo, especially in times of great disagreement.

How depressing. Why isn't this a bigger issue for Americans? Have they been placated? Turned docile and submissive? Or did it never enter their consciousness to begin with?

Quoting Hanover

The big issue is who will be placed on the Supreme Court. The judiciary, an entire branch of government, hangs in the balance, with the current split being a 4-4 conservative/liberal. So, for that reason, I'll vote for Trump so that the courts will remain conservative. The appointments made by the next President could affect the country for decades.

Hmm. Okay, that sounds more reasonable than voting for Trump based on his policy proposals or Trumpisms, but it still runs the risk of backfiring if Trump gets his own way on some important issues. In any case, the courts remaining conservative can't be a good thing for a nation that's already so backwards. Guns, religiously motivated prejudice, death penalty, cops killing blacks left, right and centre without punishment...

Quoting Hanover

The American system is a rigid two party system, and with the internal Senate rules requiring a 60% supermajority to bring anything to a vote, it will be impossible for anything much to pass.

It's misleading to say that Senate rules require a 60% supermajority to vote on a bill. It only requires such a supermajority if the opposition party opts for a filibuster. The fact that this maneuver seems to have become increasingly common in recent years doesn't mean that it's a de rigeur fact of the Senate.

Quoting Hanover

The judiciary, an entire branch of government, hangs in the balance, with the current split being a 4-4 conservative/liberal.

Yes, because Senate Republicans have refused to even vote on an Obama nominee, once again (and I repeat) putting party before country. I would love to hear the howls of protest from the right which would ensue if Senate Democrats had pulled such a maneuver based on an invented rule of procedure in which election-year judicial nominees are not brought to vote.

Just another instance of the double standard which conservatives allow themselves: the same way that the right can crow about patriotism, and yet still support a man who denigrates the record of a war hero (John McCain), and makes misleading statements about having donated to veterans' groups, whereas if Hilary Clinton had done such a thing, it would merit an endless loop of coverage on Fox News.

Quoting Sapientia

How depressing. Why isn't this a bigger issue for Americans? Have they been placated? Turned docile and submissive? Or did it never enter their consciousness to begin with?

Once upon a time, so the story goes, we were ruled by a tyrannical leader, who cared little for the rights of the people and who governed with an iron hand. Through the force of violent rebellion, we broke free from our shackles, but remained forever skeptical of our leaders. Through careful thought, we devised a system that checked the power of anyone who was granted power so that never again would we be subjugated. These rules, among other things, divided the power of our legislature into two houses, provided an executive the full power to veto, and a court to review everything to be sure it complied with our lofty principles.

It is ironic that you describe this system as one that leads to submissiveness, because it does the opposite: it weakens the government and leaves the power to the people. It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.

This system is not at all depressing. It leads to great stability and certainty. It has provided the world with its greatest economy and a protector of all that is just and right in the world.
Quoting Sapientia

In any case, the courts remaining conservative can't be a good thing for a nation that's already so backwards. Guns, religious prejudice, death penalty, cops killing blacks left, right and centre without punishment.

The Court's ruling on guns is based upon the 2nd Amendment. That is but one of the checks on the federal government designed to weaken the power of the federal government (for what it's worth). The US is extremely religiously permissive. You guys still have a national religion don't you? Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It's illegal to kill the innocent already and the courts haven't said it's ok, so I'm not sure how that concern fits into this discussion.

I can say that the US has at least figured out how to spell center.

Quoting Arkady

Yes, because Senate Republicans have refused to even vote on an Obama nominee, once again (and I repeat) putting party before country.

How would the country benefit by voting on a bad nominee?

Reply to Hanover
First, Merrick Garland (the candidate specifically at issue here) was not a "bad nominee" by any reasonable measure of the term. He is a federal judge with decades of experience who has won praise from both conservative and liberal sides for his judicial acumen and even-handedness. You may not like him, but of course you wouldn't: he's an Obama nominee, and so must be bad.

Secondly, what does it say about the country when the majority party simply disregards procedure in order to stonewall a President from making the judicial appointments which it is within his power to make? That in and of itself constitutes a harm to the country (and I'd be saying the same thing were the roles reversed). Whether you like it or not, elections have consequences, and one of them is the ability to make judicial appointments. If the Senate finds him so problematic, they can vote him down.

Quoting Hanover

It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.

Sorry, this is just conservative pablum. Republicans aren't in favor of actually shrinking or weakening the government: they're for doing away with programs and regulations which they don't like (e.g. labor standards and environmental regulations) and building up those which they do (e.g. our already-bloated military).

Republicans love "state's rights" until the states do something they don't like, and then they're all too happy to use the power of the federal government as a cudgel (e.g. the Bush administration's attempting the squelch Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, or butting into the Terri Schiavo case in Florida).

Quoting Hanover

Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

This would seem to fall pretty squarely within the purview of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is indeed a matter for SCOTUS.

Quoting Arkady

This would seem to fall pretty squarely within the purview of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is indeed a matter for SCOTUS.

It would if there were actually a law that permitted the discriminatory murder of black suspects and the Court needed to strike it down. As it is, we're all in agreement as to the law. Some might debate the facts as to what is going on, but everyone is in agreement: racial discrimination is wrong.

Quoting Arkady

Republicans aren't in favor of actually shrinking or weakening the government: they're for doing away with programs and regulations which they don't like (e.g. labor standards and environmental regulations) and building up those which they do (e.g. our already-bloated military).

You sound like a Tea Partier, arguing for re-establishing the Republican ideology as it was intended.

Quoting Arkady

Secondly, what does it say about the country when the majority party simply disregards procedure in order to stonewall a President from making the judicial appointments which it is within his power to make?

What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees.

Reply to Hanover
How so? I didn't even offer any prescriptive statements about shrinking the government: I was just pointing out how Republicans lie about wanting to shrink the government, and then do anything but once in power. But thanks for the tacit agreement that Republicans' actions fail to live up to their stated ideals.

Quoting Hanover

What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees.

I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee.

(This is, of course, part of a general pattern of Republicans' stonewalling Obama appointees, which leaves key governmental positions unfilled, which hurts the country. So, once, again, party and ideology come before country with the Republicans.)

Quoting Arkady

But thanks for the tacit agreement that Republicans' actions fails to live up to their stated ideals.

I think that is what every Republican says, thus the significant anti-establishment sentiment among Republicans.

Quoting Arkady

I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee.

You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't.

Now you're asking whether I'd be unhappy if the shoe were on the other foot. Sure, I'd want a Republican nominee to be voted on, and I'd want him or her to be approved. I wouldn't argue, though, that there was a violation of procedure in the Senate's failure to vote. If I did argue that, I guess I'd just be wrong and terribly inconsistent, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Quoting Hanover

You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't.

Yes, and your response was sophistry. You are fully aware that the sole reason for delaying the vote (or refusing to hold it at all) is to deny Obama his right to appoint a judicial nominee while in office, which is his prerogative as president. Ergo, the Senate is failing to fulfill its role of confirming (or not) said appointment. My response was on point.

Reply to Hanover
So, in other words, their party fails to live up to their stated ideals, and so Republicans...remain Republicans. Brilliant. (This is little different than apologists for Communism who simply claim that, once the right people are in power, this mode of government could go just swimmingly. But maybe, just maybe, there's an inherent structural flaw in a party which seeks to arrogate as much governmental power for itself as possible while simultaneously claiming to despise government. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew makes this point very well.)

Quoting Hanover

Once upon a time, so the story goes, we were ruled by a tyrannical leader, who cared little for the rights of the people and who governed with an iron hand. Through the force of violent rebellion, we broke free from our shackles, but remained forever skeptical of our leaders. Through careful thought, we devised a system that checked the power of anyone who was granted power so that never again would we be subjugated. These rules, among other things, divided the power of our legislature into two houses, provided an executive the full power to veto, and a court to review everything to be sure it complied with our lofty principles.

It is ironic that you describe this system as one that leads to submissiveness, because it does the opposite: it weakens the government and leaves the power to the people. It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.

This system is not at all depressing. It leads to great stability and certainty. It has provided the world with its greatest economy and a protector of all that is just and right in the world.

You paint a lovely picture, yet, to describe the American system in your own words, a rigid two party system which allows for situations in which it is impossible for anything much to pass or in which nothing will ever pass, and which allows for four years of gridlock to ensue, and which was set up to protect the status quo, for some reason strikes me as problematic and far from ideal. What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside.

Quoting Hanover

The Court's ruling on guns is based upon the 2nd Amendment. That is but one of the checks on the federal government designed to weaken the power of the federal government (for what it's worth).

Yes, and the Second Amendment needs to be amended or simply done away with. It's outdated and does more harm than good.

Quoting Hanover

The US is extremely religiously permissive. You guys still have a national religion don't you?

Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here.

Quoting Hanover

Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It's illegal to kill the innocent already and the courts haven't said it's ok, so I'm not sure how that concern fits into this discussion.

That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire.

Quoting Hanover

I can say that the US has at least figured out how to spell center.

You misspelt "centre".

Quoting Sapientia

You paint a lovely picture,

I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith. Quoting Sapientia

What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside.

Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly).Quoting Sapientia

Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here.

There's a difference between what individuals do and what a legislature may require. In the UK, I'm guessing you have the whole gamut, from racist, homophobic skinheads to civil rights leaders. The same holds true in the US. I think we both agree (but am not sure) that all these folks have the right to exist and believe whatever they want without legal restriction. In some parts of the country, they try to pass laws limiting abortion (Texas), although in others they pass laws expanding homosexual rights (the Bay area). In no instance though, can any jurisdiction pass a law that violates the Constitution, so all homosexuals can marry, no one can be denied an abortion (within certain limitations), and no black person can be legally discriminated against.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that you could move to the US and do exactly what you do in the UK without fear of government restriction. It wouldn't be like if you moved to Saudi Arabia or something. It'd take you a few months to meet like minded folks here in the US, and you could go about advocating the same old nonsense you did while in the UK.Quoting Sapientia

That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire.

The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict.

It is difficult to maintain perspective in the FaceBook of first-person streaming of police shootings and their aftermath.

Per the Washington Post... In 2015 he police shot 965 persons; 564 were armed with a gun, 281 were armed with some other weapon; only 90 were not armed. only 4% of those killed by police fire were unarmed. The Washington Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled [another significant problem], or they ran when officers told them to halt.

The killing of Fhilando Castile might not have happened if he were white; it might also not have happened if he was unarmed (he was armed with a gun, legally). It might also be the case that his record of 55 driving citations (some dismissed) played a role in his being stopped in the first place.

Meanwhile, a 2 year old was killed and a 15 month old was injured by stray bullets from one of two shooters firing away at each other in North Minneapolis (our 'ghetto'). The connections between 32 year old Philando and the dead 2 year are guns.

Carrying a gun may be legal, but we see over and over that it is ill-advised. The presence of a gun alone can lead to adverse outcomes that wouldn't otherwise occur.

None of this alters the fact that proportionately police kill more blacks than whites, while numerically killing more whites than blacks. That is a real problem, but it isn't the case that blacks come into contact with the police on a random basis. Blacks tend to be involved in crime much more often than their population would predict. Whites on the other hand, are involved in crime about as often as their population would predict.

Coming in contact with the police in any negative context raises one's risk. Being armed, male, and black increases personal risk more, because the police identify such characteristics as increasing the threat level.

I couldn't quite figure out from the AP article whether this was Castile's 52nd traffic stop, or 53rd. Regardless, he was a veteran. The author of an article in Slate was wondering if this was a routine part of local government finances - can you shed any light on that BC? Anyway, he averaged three stops a year. I wonder how many traffic stops I would survive as an out of state white with a gun on my person?

Reply to photographer Larpenter Avenue, the street Philandro Castile was stopped on, is an E-W thoroughfare, running from downtown Minneapolis to a large park on the east side of St. Paul. It's bordered by 2 or 3 little "suburbs" which are more like neighborhoods of St. Paul. Both of these suburbs--Falcon Heights and St. Anthony--have very solid property values and numerous amenities. I doubt if either one needs income from traffic fines. Both are roughly 85%-90% white.

the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area is quite large and facilities of all kinds are scattered all over the place. One has to travel across many municipal boundaries to carry on a normal life. The main avenues of urban travel are Interstate 35 and 94, and state highways 61, 52, 55, and 36. These are patrolled by the MN Highway patrol. Minneapolis and St. Paul police patrol their cities' streets, along with county sheriffs. Smaller suburbs frequently share police costs. I don't think fines figure into local budgets in a significant way.

Speed traps and ticket factories are usually found in really small rural Minnesota burgs where property tax income is very low.

I have no information on whether Mr. Castile revealed that he was a registered concealed gun carrier in any of his earlier stops. If he did, it apparently wasn't an issue.

What I have heard on NPR is that the best procedure for gun carriers who are stopped by the police is:

1. roll down your window
2. put your hands on the upper half of the steering wheel
3. tell the officer you carry a gun, or have a gun in the car, and where it is
4. ask the officer what he (or she) wants you to do next.
5. keep your gun and car registration someplace other than your back pocket -- like on the visor or in your shirt pocket, where reaching for it doesn't look threatening.

I don't drive, and the Second Amendment anti-personnel missiles I carry on my bicycle are always visible. Police seem to be OK with that.

Quoting Hanover

I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith.

Have you seen [I]The Newsroom[/I]? I've just started watching the first season. I like how the main character, Will McAvoy, eventually answers the question: "What makes America the greatest country in the world?". At least the first part, before he gets all mushy.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1zqOYBabXmA[/video]

Quoting Hanover

Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly).

Sure, issues get addressed, but whether they end up getting resolved, or whether any progress has been made, is another matter. And it is clear with gun control that raising and addressing the issue has not been enough, and that there has been a failure to cooperate or reach a compromise for the greater good. This, at least in part, seems indicative of a broader systematic fault. It raises the question of whether the system cannot be reformed so as to avoid or reduce the occurrence of such failures.

Quoting Hanover

The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict.

Supreme Court or not, this is clearly a problem, and something should be done about it. The statistics show a racial disparity which is alarming, and the percentage of police offers who don't get convicted, and the percentage of those who get convicted but do not end up serving a prison sentence, is also deeply concerning, and is due in no small part to bias.