If you read the actual facts about Trump's character, career, history and politics, there is no way you could support him, but of course, neither he nor his supporters read anything much, let alone anything critical. So we're supposed to recognise that wilful ignorance and mendacity constitute a 'tectonic shift'.

I don't think so.
— Wayfarer

This is exactly the kind of attitude that the video is targeting. They knew all that and still voted for him, and I don't think you care why. — jamalrob

Highly doubtful “they knew all that.” In any case, mendacity and willful ignorance is the normal state of affairs in the USA. A tectonic shift has occurred in the economic landscape though, and unfortunately the so called “rust belt” remains rusty. Trump still visits these places, even going so far as reciting poetry to inspire goodwill for all.

I knew I could count on you for some serious discussion.

The Nazi hyperbole goes from mildly annoying to insulting, but to speak literally, as if we are just a few years from actual gas chambers and genocide, is absurd and may evoke a yawn, depending upon how passionate I am at the time — Hanover

Since the Trump administration started the child separation less the two years ago, young children who have gone months without seeing their parents go without "showers, toothbrushes, or clean clothes, or beds" and wear dirty clothes covered in "mucous or mud-stained", forced to sleep on the hard floor without mattresses, sometime with lights on and in cold temperatures, making them susceptible to the flu , which they are not given proper treatment for. At least seven children have died.

I mean, go ahead an yawn at this, I don't think of you a morally considerate person by any means, so I wouldn't be surprised, but this is all within just two years under conditions more favorable than Germany faced at the time, yet wind the clock ahead several years and factor in the effects of global warming in third world countries and who fucking knows how things might escalate.

yet wind the clock ahead several years and factor in the effects of global warming in third world countries and who fucking knows how things might escalate. — Maw

Indeed! If things continue on the current course, the whole of the Third World will likely be thrown under the bus to preserve our precious lifestyles for a few more years. There's a gigantic looming problem, or rather constellation of problems, that apparently very few people are prepared to even contemplate.

He's just had a heart attack, he's 77 and looks every day of it — Wayfarer

Sanders was born September 8, 1941; he's 78. He'll be 79 before the 2020 election, about as old as Reagan when he completed his second term.

The age of presidents has been increasing steadily for a long time. Biden may have had heart problems, and it appeared quit a bit earlier than it has for Sanders.

I would vote for Sanders, but age and heart / brain health are a matter which should be considered long and hard for any over-70 candidate and more so for a 79 year old one. (Reagan had Alzheimers (he was functional, I guess) and his wife Nancy was consulting astrologers!).

Sanders is just five years older than Trump. Should Sanders be dismissed as potential candidate just because he had a heart attack?

@Hanover I don't think Trump is a Nazi--even a crypto-nazi. He could be more easily described as having some fascist tendencies if we think of fascism as less a list of specific doctrines and more a set of tactics which undermine democracy. His (seeming) desire to be a one-man operation could be a psychological bug (or feature), or a characteristic of fascist thinking. His disregard for veracity in his statements could be chalked up to stupidity or another fascist approach to define the truth as whatever it needs to be. His anti-immigrant stand is legitimate enough, and there is a coherent rationale for sharp limitations on immigration. Scapegoating groups, however, is a distinctly fascist move. Scapegoating should be condemned because it is another anti-democratic, move. Scapegoating makes it more difficult for rational policies to be considered. And so on.

I look forward to seeing Trump run out of town, but I don't see him as a little Hitler. He's a little asshole, for sure, and every now and then does something normal and politically acceptable. But not often enough. Before we we impeach him, we should remember his VP, Mike Pence, another prick. Nothing to look forward to.

He shouldn't be dismissed, no. But as a Sanders enthusiast, I am worried about the combination of his heart and age. He appears to me to be in excellent mental shape, and he hasn't had to take a lot of time off from campaigning. That's all to the good.

The Presidency is a tough job (if taken seriously--DONALD) and the demands on one's physical resources are high -- at least that is what I have read. Haven't tried it myself. So, his running mate is more important than usual.

I mean, go ahead an yawn at this, I don't think of you a morally considerate person by any means, so I wouldn't be surprised, but this is all within just two years under conditions more favorable than Germany faced at the time, yet wind the clock ahead several years and factor in the effects of global warming in third world countries and who fucking knows how things might escalate — Maw

Is this where I draw a distinction between gas chambers for Jews sought out from every corner of Europe and temporary detention centers for those who have sought out residency in the US in open violation of its laws?

It's nothing at all the same, and it's for that reason I yawn, as I've grown tired of hearing the same old nonsense all these years. I honestly don't take these comments seriously regardless of how morally outraged you might be.

Whatever you might think of the weirdos at Spiked, I think this is a pretty good video. It's far from a deep or original analysis, but it makes some points that I mostly agree with and that I think people have to learn from, especially Leftists. And really I just like it because it stands up for people who are being derided in liberal and Left circles. I have a humble desire: that we understand what led people to vote the way they did, rather than dismiss them. Their concerns should be ours. — jamalrob

I just watched the video and it's laughably awful, unsurprisingly shallow, biased, and filled with discredited presumptions and absurd claims that we're somehow meant to accept at face value. Rather than providing studies or statistics, it treats anecdata as meaningful, substance analysis. It's been nearly three years since Trump won the 2016 election and we have ample evidence to confirm that racism in fact played a key role in mobilizing votes for Trumps. Not "economic anxiety". In fact, I would challenge anyone to find studies that do show economic uncertainty was the key issue for Trump voters. Unfortunately, a random gym owner does not count. Despite the video claiming that a majority of Trump voters were enticed by his message due to economic struggles, more Hillary voters claimed that the economy was a more important issue than Trump voters (52% vs. 41%), while a majority of Trump supporters claimed that immigration was one of their biggest issues (64% vs 33%). The video claims that Trump voters have been struggling financially while Hillary voters mainly comprised of coastal elites, a majority of voters with income <$50K voted for Hillary (53%) over Trump (41%), while voters with an income over $100K were split 47% vs. 47%.

Much of the framing in the documentary is patently absurd. After several British stay voters said that leave voters (at 10:00) based their decisions on racism and xenophobia, a writer retorts "well actually, in many polls, leave voters said they are not hostile to migrants and they don't have racist views". Well of course few would claim otherwise, so that's not a proper way of measuring whether or not they actually were motivated by racism. What did any of you expect? A interviewee looking straight into the camera and saying "yes, I hate blacks and Mexicans and that's why I voted Trump"?

Then they pivot to Obama voters who subsequently voted for Trump, despite not offering any stats on whether or not this is a significant voting segment. In fact, only about 9% to 12% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016, and racial resentment nevertheless played a role in that switch. Oh, but I guess we'll never actually know the truth since that one gym owner said he had several biracial grandkids so he couldn't possibly be racist.

While none of this economic anxiety bullshit stands up to scrutiny, I think it's interesting how we're are supposed to be overly sympathetic to ostensibly economically struggling whites, despite other ethnic groups, particularity Black Americans, having also struggled (in more meaningful ways) yet have never resorting to a voting for a overtly racist, fascist-adjacent strong man.

I think some of the most hard hitting stuff was from Lowry, the economist, near the end of the video — StreetlightX

"The way to defeat Trump is to get 50.1% of the vote" — StreetlightX

But this isn't true!!! And he should know this!!!

"What is there to exploit in people who are not working?" Are you kidding? Reagan's vast expansion of the prison system that revved up in the 1980s and has continued ever since, has made billions upon billions for all companies involved in constructing and administrating prison systems. The projects also "make" billions of dollars for other people. — uncanni

That's very sad and deplorable. I outright condemn this. But it's not exploitation of the working classes. I used the word "exploit" in the Marxian sense.

Can you clarify what you mean by a system growing, you seem to be saying, sui generis? That's not sounding very Marxian to me. — uncanni

Damn right it's not Marxian.

It's the system of the new aristocrat class in the USA. The fact that your birth and lineage determines your class in society.

Here's the mechanism or how it works:

Persons A, B, C, and D are each the CEOs of multinational big conglomerates. They need people to vote them in. They recommend (where A is the CEO) to elect B, C, D into the board of directors. So A gets a cushy job, no matter how he performs. Because B, C, and D will vote him in. Then A also sits on the board of directors of the companies where B, C and D are respective CEOs. etc. They secured the place of CEO and board members niftily for life. Of course if one blunders, and his position is untenable, he gets transferred to a different company's CEO position, switching with the other guy.

This is now the modus operandi of the oligarchs. The board of directors vote huge salaries to the CEOs, and each CEO votes on different company's boards where they sit.

This is not Marxian. This is brand new.

Is this where I draw a distinction between gas chambers for Jews sought out from every corner of Europe and temporary detention centers for those who have sought out residency in the US in open violation of its laws? — Hanover

Again, your ahistorical insistence on narrowly defining Nazism by it's concluding years, rather than taking into account the conditions in which it began to arise, and the conditions which laid the foundations for the acceptance of gas chambers (e.g. constantly referring to an marginalized out-group as subhuman, "rats", "vermin" , while also excluding the conditions that the immigrants are escaping from and what caused them (it was the USA). I've explained all of this multiple times in other threads, to you and to others. Maybe you should get a bunch of tattoos like the main character in Momento so that I don't have to waste my time further repeating myself?

Mark Twain is (apocryphally) have said that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes", and I think that's a useful phrase to take into account when calling modern people Nazi's or Fascists, which were essentially political parties that had gained power under specific conditions for a period of time in a particular place. So no, we likely never going to see any exact repetition of these movements and events, but that does not mean that we should discard these otherwise politically salient terms, especially when we seem them echo again so clearly in modernity.

But this isn't true!!! And he should know this!!! — Maw

Yes, yes, adjusted for the undemocratic bullshit that is the electoral college and so on. The point I take away is that it's no good to respond to these world events by doubling down on undemocratic measures ('if the people are dumb and ignorant, then we'll do the right thing for them'). The people must be built. They must be constituted. And we do that by engagement.

I do think its naive to say that race was not a factor - perhaps and likely the most important factor - in what's been going on. But even racism is differential - that it mattered here does not mean it has to matter in the future. But the only way to bring out that result is, again, engagement. I qualify this by saying that 'engagement' is not a solution but itself a problem: engage how, where, and in what manner? These are tactical questions. But as far as strategy goes? More democracy, not less.

The point I take away is that it's no good to respond to these world events by doubling down on undemocratic measures ('if the people are dumb and ignorant, then we'll do the right thing for them'). The people must be built. They must be constituted. And we do that by engagement. — StreetlightX

I mean I certainly agree, but as I've previously pointed out to you, impeachment simply isn't a black and white democratic vs. non-democratic process as you've been making it out to be, given that the Democrats won the House in the biggest wave since the early 70s, and an impeachment inquiry is part of that responsibility as elected officials in the occupations they serve. And while not synonymous with a democratic vote by any means, the desire to at least have an impeachment inquiry is enjoying a majority in the polls. I mean, I'm curious, do you think that Nixon should have been impeached? I would assume no, then?

More democracy, not less. — StreetlightX

Ah, but what if people vote for more government power? Should we get rid of the bill of rights?

So my response applies more to this thread, I should add the question, what if 51% of the country want impeachment?

The second one is obviously taken to extremes that do not represent your position. But they all suggest a problem with a simplified statement of "more democracy, not less". I hear, "more of the democracy I want, less of the democracy I don't want." Jim Crow was the direct result of more democracy.

What you say makes sense to me. I'm partial to Sanders myself.

I mean, I'm curious, do you think that Nixon should have been impeached? I would assume no, then? — Maw

To be clear, I don't think impeachment is inherently anti-democratic or anything. In fact it's obviously an important mechanism for guaranteeing it. I'm just saying that it should be wielded strategically. At a time in which trust in government is at an all time low, and where wide-scale cynicism rules the demos, an impeachment process - one over Ukrainian telephone calls and the Bidens, no less - has the very real chance of deepening the democratic deficit, not shoring it up. I don't at all think the conditions that prevailed during Nixon's impeachment are at work right now. And those conditions matter. Which is again just to say that I'm not speaking at the level of principles (what ought to happen in ideal conditions) but at the level of strategy, given what the US has got right now.

And by way of reply to @ZhouBoTong: I'm not dealing in hypotheticals.

To be clear, I don't think impeachement is inherently anti-democratic or anything. In fact it's obviously an important mechanism for guaranteeing it. I'm just saying that it should be wielded strategically. — StreetlightX

That's fair, I just found the anti-impeachment sentiment expressed near the end of the video puzzling and nonsensical, particularly the statement made by the economist Lowery you quoted earlier for some of the reasons I provided and for additional reasons which maybe I'll delineate on tomorrow.

They knew all that and still voted for him, and I don't think you care why. — jamalrob

It's not that complicated. What people want is a sustainable supply of all the stuff/lifestyle they've been used to. They can't have it because it was always a system which borrowed heavily from reserves (ecological, and social). Politicians are never going to get elected by saying people can't have what they want, so they lie. Different lies fit better with the stories different demographics tell themselves. But they don't lie completely, they give a gloss of 'wrestling with the problem' to placate those who recognise that something is amiss.

Trump tried just lying outright (American jobs, low immigration, booming economy...bullshit) whilst simultaneously calling out the other - more compromise-making - politicians as lairs (which they obviously are). It worked.

It worked this time because the population are getting more stupid and malleable. It'll probably work again. We have a cartoon character for a Prime Minister in this country, America has a reality TV star who can't even work an umbrella, Ukraine has a comedian... People are just electing the 'one they know off the telly'.

There little doubt that companies have at least some influence on culture. It's in the best economic interests of companies who which to sell products (which we really don't need) to exert that influence towards a creating a population who don't question much (who in their right mind going to buy some crap they already have a perfectly functioning version of, that will break in the first five minutes of use and then go back to the same company to buy another?).

It's in capitalism's best interests to have a stupid and malleable population, it's in democracy's best interest to have an educated and thoughtful population. The two don't mix well.

This is essentially persecution and it has no place in a free society. We should humanize our political opponents instead of the other way about. — NOS4A2

Perhaps you should tell Trump?

BREAKING: Person who will vote for Trump thinks the Democrats shouldn't nominate a left wing candidate. — Maw

As bad as his reasons for voting for Trump are, his analysis isn't without merit. It's a mistake to think racism or sexism will hurt Trump's chances of re-election.

An important distinction that sometimes gets overlooked between Hitler and Trump is that the former had death camps where millions of people were systematically murdered in an attempt to create a pure race and in the latter the guy would send out a bunch of fucked up tweets that pissed everyone off. — Hanover

Hitler had no death camps in 1931, but he was already dangerous. I agree that Trump isn't Hitler. But claiming that no comparison is permissible unless the terrible consequences have already happened is absurd and dangerous. It should be rather obvious that we don't want to "wait and see" until the first death camp actually opens.

Could you explain why it's important to you? — frank

The likely consequence of the breakdown of political institutions is violence. Sometimes, this cannot be avoided, but we should be aware that what keeps a democracy going is mostly psychological barriers based on internalised institutional principles. Like not using the military to take over the country. Or shoot your political opponents.

The fate of the world in the hands of the enraged inexperienced? What a terrifying prospect! — Janus

Oh no, these young people will destroy the world! That's totally a new thing. It's not like the ancient Greeks said the same thing about younger generations...

yet wind the clock ahead several years and factor in the effects of global warming in third world countries and who fucking knows how things might escalate. — Maw

I've been scoffed at for my Trump-Hitler comparisons, but every day the parallels grow stronger. Interestingly, Hitler was a germophobe, as is Trump. Fear of contamination, projections of one's own imagined filth onto the other.

It's not about Jews, gas chambers and the conquest of Europe vs. Trump's agenda, as some folks would like to reduce the issues to; I'm certainly not wiping away historical differences between Nazi Germany and contemporary usa, but Trump's fascist, totalitarian mentality and his utter disregard for the lives of people considered inferior gives me goosebumps--as do his views on women (and Melania does remind me of some of those nude paintings Hitler loved so much; she's a thing, not a person).

Trump pushes his scarey stereotypes of Mexicans and Central Americans as Hitler did with the Jews. So there may not be gas chambers, but there are certainly places with uncanny similarities to concentration camps, as you pointed out. Trump may be a bit more old-fashioned than Hitler with his ideas of crocodile-filled moats, but it smacks of final solution type-thinking to me...

If you read the actual facts about Trump's character, career, history and politics, there is no way you could support him, but of course, neither he nor his supporters read anything much, let alone anything critical.
— Wayfarer

This is exactly the kind of attitude that the video is targeting. They knew all that and still voted for him...

I don't get why centrist liberals always want to make such a display of their outrage, even after three years. It's embarrassing. — jamalrob

What voters know (facts) and what they feel (emotions ).

Voters tend not to know all the facts; some even deride those that produce them.
They might vote for someone like Trump because 'He is just like us' - no time for inconvenient truths.
Plain speaking and puts America, especially white, aspirational males first and foremost.
People tend to only know what they see or read everyday and that is within their own zone, with media which speaks to baseline survival. Us against the Other. Fear and Prejudice.

It takes an openness of mind to look at another perspective, to travel outwith your own socio-cultural sphere. And even then, it don't matter much until the shit starts happening to you.

I think most here take a clear interest in what happens in America. It is highly influential in all ways.
But do we really know what is going on ? I think we might have a more objective and critical view.

How many people don't get to vote. How many are too ill, poor or downtrodden even to think about it ?
I watched episode 1 of a Simon Reeve's the Americas documentary the other day. It was an eye-opener.
Beautiful and shocking. Educational, fascinating travelogue but not to everyone's taste.

The parts that stayed with me related to the social aspects. The oil producers laying waste to country and communities. The ongoing murders of indigenous women, with no police even interested in interviewing a missing woman's son.
Who cares out there in the wilds ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00095nt/the-americas-with-simon-reeve-series-1-episode-1

What the hell is a 'centrist liberal' in America or UK, and why would you want to generalise about them ?
What is wrong with a display of outrage ?
Certain behaviours and actions from those in power are outrageous.
If people voice concern, this is not 'hysteria' and should not be portrayed as such. Why would you find such 'embarrassing' ?

I return to the cool, objective facts as presented by the academic in Ch4 interview.
And compare this with the more subjective, emotive aspects of the 'Deplorables' video. And Trump rallies which stir up hatred and mass hysteria.

People only see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

As @Maw says:
... it's interesting how we're are supposed to be overly sympathetic to ostensibly economically struggling whites, despite other ethnic groups, particularity Black Americans, having also struggled (in more meaningful ways) yet have never resorting to a voting for a overtly racist, fascist-adjacent strong man.

It is encouraging to read pertinent points being made after watching the 'Deplorables'.
Some useful and informative analyses. Just a few snippets:

From what I understand, the growing disparity between rich and poor is not good for democracy or economic stability. A small coalition of power and a downtrodden populace works well for an autocracy, however. — praxis

Regarding the Erie Pennsylvania Obama-Obama-Trump voters, manufacturing jobs have not returned and there's no indication that they will ever return. The horizon looks like ever increasing automation. So will they still vote for him in 2020? If so, will that be a rational choice, or a choice consistent with what they claim to be the reason for supporting him? — praxis

Then they pivot to Obama voters who subsequently voted for Trump, despite not offering any stats on whether or not this is a significant voting segment. In fact, only about 9% to 12% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016, and racial resentment nevertheless played a role in that switch. Oh, but I guess we'll never actually know the truth since that one gym owner said he had several biracial grandkids so he couldn't possibly be racist. — Maw

What people want is a sustainable supply of all the stuff/lifestyle they've been used to. They can't have it because it was always a system which borrowed heavily from reserves (ecological, and social). Politicians are never going to get elected by saying people can't have what they want, so they lie. Different lies fit better with the stories different demographics tell themselves. But they don't lie completely, they give a gloss of 'wrestling with the problem' to placate those who recognise that something is amiss. — Isaac

I feel that many would vote for anyone if it meant preventing the likes of Hillary from achieving presidency...., it's just terrible that he can be a better option than his mainstream political rivals. — Judaka

I think that is what is happening here in the UK.
People will vote for what seems to be the least bad option, on looks alone. It's all about the personality.
Who can better persuade...
Corbyn is portrayed as the worst thing that can happen to the country.
Johnson, our mini Trump, is apparently FOR the people. Against the establishment and the law.

It's been nearly three years since Trump won the 2016 election and we have ample evidence to confirm that racism in fact played a key role in mobilizing votes for Trumps. Not "economic anxiety". In fact, I would challenge anyone to find studies that do show economic uncertainty was the key issue for Trump voters. Unfortunately, a random gym owner does not count. Despite the video claiming that a majority of Trump voters were enticed by his message due to economic struggles, more Hillary voters claimed that the economy was a more important issue than Trump voters (52% vs. 41%), while a majority of Trump supporters claimed that immigration was one of their biggest issues (64% vs 33%). — Maw

Thanks for the information. While I think that the data tells us a more complex story than you're suggesting, it does look like I was wrong about Trump voters. I didn't know the issues had been so racialized. But I'm still going to defend my basic points--later some time.

Yes. All good questions.

What if Trump wins the next election and declares himself President for Life? If he is allowed to defy Congress on this matter, then what is going to stop him? . . . . I'm not talking about a military coup. I'm talking about Trump defying the Constitution and getting away with it. And it's happening right before your eyes. Trump's lawyers have basically declared that he ought to be immune from prosecution, even though the complaint that has been filed against him is clear and so-far unchallenged evidence of criminal acts. — Wayfarer

People can claim whatever they want, but it would be settled in the courts. It wouldn't be Trump's decision.

If you read the actual facts about Trump's character, career, history and politics, there is no way you could support him, but of course, neither he nor his supporters read anything much — Wayfarer

Yeah, I didn't read anything about him. All I knew about him when I voted for him was gained from TV and radio during the campaign, and then prior to that, most of my info about him came from his appearances on Howard Stern.

I think Clinton totally lost it when she spoke of a 'basket of deplorables'.
Her contempt and disdain in this generalisation of voters was clear. It was not clever. — Amity

And yet she is clever. Maybe she thought that she had it in the bag so why not have some fun. The audience laughed. Pure hubris.

I think Clinton totally lost it when she spoke of a 'basket of deplorables'.
Her contempt and disdain in this generalisation of voters was clear. It was not clever.
— Amity

And yet she is clever. Maybe she thought that she had it in the bag so why not have some fun. The audience laughed. Pure hubris. — praxis

Yes. It totally backfired on her. She has to live with that line; that act of stupidity which turned the undecideds towards Trump. The utter disdain shown by that phrase, was used to great effect by Trump who boxes clever.

Donald Trump criticized Clinton's remark as insulting his supporters In a rally at Des Moines, Iowa, Trump stated: "While my opponent slanders you as deplorable and irredeemable, I call you hardworking American patriots who love your country". During the rest of the election, Trump invited "deplorable Americans" on stage. For example, at a rally in Miami, Florida, on September 16, 2016, Trump parodied Les Misérables with the title Les Déplorables under the song "Do You Hear the People Sing?". Trump also used the label against Clinton in an advertisement, which claimed that Clinton herself is deplorable because she "viciously demoniz[es] hard working people like you". — Wiki