So I suspect for a lot of people the last four or five years has been met with a bit of confusion. "How did our politics get to this point?" From this confusion comes the natural fear that stems from chaos, and while fear might be genuinely warranted, things for the moment aren't quite as bad as they appear.
One of the things that might not be apparent to the lay person is that both of the major political parties have seriously fractured. For the sake of simplicity, I will outline roughly two factions (establishment vs populist) each party has broken into, and will later discuss what it means and why. One could argue there is more splintering beyond this and the growing of third parties and other fringe groups, but for the sake of brevity I will keep it narrowed to these main four.
Establishment Republicans: (examples include the Bushs, Romney, McCain, and Kasich) These guys will give all the usual right wing talking points - freedom, low taxes, guns, etc - but will always fail to deliver on their promises and are more than glad to "reach across the aisle" to compromise these values. They are eager to go to war and sacrifice our troops for corporate interests, all under the guise of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" or other such nonsense. Thankfully they are a dying breed, and while a lot of Republican politicians are still in this category, they get little support from their constituents.
Populist Republicans: (examples include Trump, Palin, Ron and Rand Paul) These people genuinely believe in the usual right wing points (pro gun, pro freedom, anti abortion, anti war) and are willing to go to stronger lengths to return to them. Populists are also opposed to corporate interests, which makes them some powerful enemies in high places. They are easy to spot because the media will disproportionately attack them (or in Ron Paul's case, go to great lengths to pretend he doesn't exist). When these people hold rallies, they easily fill stadiums of people. They are usually a guaranteed win to if they aren't held back by the establishment, which they all too often are.
Establishment Democrats: (examples include, the Clintons, Obama, and Pelosi) Just as the Republicans, these people will fall in line with corporate interests. They're all too happy to raise taxes, knowing that they will still be making bank as the public suffers in economic decline. Will often portray leftist talking points, though will only superficially act on them (Obamacare, initially touted as free healthcare for all, only benefited the insurance companies). They will preach they are anti war, but will happily engage in war just as the establishment Republicans do. In truth there is very little difference between the two establishment factions aside from the lies they speak.
Populist Democrats: (examples include Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Cuomo) These people are seeking radical reform, and outright change to pro communist policies within the United States. They are all too happy to encourage riots, while demanding the police be abolished. Their economic policies are absurd and fantastical and if enabled, would quickly impoverish everyone. They have little to no concern for any pain - including death - they cause, so long as it will lead to their utopian vision. They will often champion "equality" and other lovely sounding things all the while pushing for a decline in freedom and destruction of America. Thankfully these people are not a majority of Democrats, but they are an ever growing plurality. Because if this, it might be more accurate to refer to them as radicals rather than Populists.
So how did this happen? Well if we look back to the Bush era, we can see the last big hurrah of the Republican establishment. After years of wars and lies and the decline of freedoms with regard to the PATRIOT ACT and TSA. People were rightfully done with establishment Republicans. They have never since made a comeback and they likely never will.
In '08 Obama promised "Change, you can believe in" and initially had a lot of populist support from people on both parties. This support is why he was ultimately chosen over obvious corporate candidate Hillary. However under Obama, there was no change; the wars continued, and even escalated, going from just Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Yemen, as well as an attempt for Syria. When people saw that they were not getting the requisite change expected, the populists started to really take form: on the right you had the Tea Party (vilified by the media as "racist" as the media always does with Right wing Populists) and on the left you had Occupy Wall Street, and when that eventually fell apart, you had the arrival of the BLM a few years later.
Despite this, in '12 he was re-elected, largely because his opposition was the same breed if corporate warmonger that he was. After two terms of this and four years of lies and wars for corporate establishment with nothing to show for it, populists on both sides have had enough of the establishment politicians.
So if you haven't caught on, the Republican and Democrat establishment are effectively the same party. This is why they both have their campaigns funded by Goldman Sachs.
With '16 Trump stepped into the primary and garnered a lot of attention by blatantly attacking the establishment types that were now largely opposed by both parties. This momentum allowed for him to eventually win the primary despite all attempts from the establishment to stop him. With this, the establishment put it's support hard to Hillary, cheating Bernie out of the Democratic primary (it is easier for the establishment to rig Democrat primaries since they utilize the superdelegate system specifically to promote this). The dejected Bernie supporters cast their vote in many different ways; some sucked it up and voted Hillary anyway, some voted Trump out of spite, some voted 3rd party, and some stayed home altogether. A populist Trump against an establishment Hillary who lost half her party's voter base was an easy win, despite the odds given by the establishment media's polls in attempt to demoralize. Even Micheal Moore - who I am not inclined to ever agree with - observed this (look up "Micheal Moore, why Trump Will Win." Video is about 4:30 minutes)
In this coming election, Biden has the unenviable task of trying to court the establishment and the radicals at once, which means he cannot be coherent on his policy stances (not that he is coherent anyway) It's difficult to juggle the "hard on crime" establishment approach with the "abolish the police" desires of the radicals. This along with a low energy campaign all but ensures he is likely to loose, not withstanding severe voter fraud.
Trump is losing the Republican establishment to Biden, but as I said earlier, this is a dying breed and thus his loss is minimal. This is why despite the polls once again claiming he isn't doing well, and "Republicans" like Bush and Romney putting support behind Biden, Trump is most likely going to take 2020. If you look at the rallies, Trump is still filling stadiums, while Biden is yelling in empty parking lots.
Update: I should probably note that there is a trend with older voters to favor establishment candidates, seeing it as "a return to normalcy" with younger voters favoring populist candidates of either fashion as a means to stop their endless mire of debt and the increasing loss if their friends getting killed overseas. This is obviously not exclusive, but seems a solid point of division.
No comments:
Post a Comment