American Politics the 2016 edition

timothy leary wrote: Not long ago someone told us all the Republican Party was on it's way out.

It is a likely consequence of time. The Grand Ole Party is getting older and whiter. They rely increasingly on the Boomers. 30 years from now, there will be few Boomers left. Demographically, we're going from 75% white non-hispanic voters to likely less than 50% in that time period. If the Republican party is to survive, they're either going to have to change their platform dramatically, convince a young cohort both of their ideals and convince them to vote, or somehow convince aging Gen X to become their next champions to give them a stay of execution. Even if the Republican party can limp along for now, it's a nasty proposition going forward.

Trump is likely the most unpopular incoming president we've had since the so-called Corrupt Bargain that marked the beginning of the end of Jefferson's dominant Democratic-Republican party. I still ponder whether the Republican party will be reformed, or it will die and a new party will rise to fill the vacuum.

Gamemako wrote: timothy leary wrote: Not long ago someone told us all the Republican Party was on it's way out. It is a likely consequence of time. The Grand Ole Party is getting older and whiter. They rely increasingly on the Boomers. 30 years from now, there will be few Boomers left. Demographically, we're going from 75% white non-hispanic voters to likely less than 50% in that time period. If the Republican party is to survive, they're either going to have to change their platform dramatically, convince a young cohort both of their ideals and convince them to vote, or somehow convince aging Gen X to become their next champions to give them a stay of execution. Even if the Republican party can limp along for now, it's a nasty proposition going forward. Trump is likely the most unpopular incoming president we've had since the so-called Corrupt Bargain that marked the beginning of the end of Jefferson's dominant Democratic-Republican party. I still ponder whether the Republican party will be reformed, or it will die and a new party will rise to fill the vacuum.

just as note to that...  the white non-hispanic percentage now is in the lower 60's.  Last I read it will drop another 2% next time we elect a President. I think the basic curve is 2% ever 4 years that percentage of the share of the white vote drops due to attrition and the corresponding massive young immigrant population coming of voting age. I've read that curve may well accelerate in the next decade.  I watched a school buss unload today... in my very well off.. high income neighborhood.  27 kids got off the bus.. 5 were white

 Our electoral landscape will look VERY different soon...

As they say.. 'where all the Reagan democrats? You'll find them in the Oakland Hills cemetery'.

it won't be long before they are asking where the Trump voters are... America is getting younger. and more brown.. not a thing anyone can do to change it. It is America afterall... celebrate it. It is what we are and that is what made us great.. not some red f**king hats and wishing we were back in teh days when white privilage ruled...


Edited by micky - January 23 2017 at 14:29

Anyone who thinks the good old boys of the corrupt Republican party are just going to roll over and die IMHO is kidding themselves.

Only a few days into Trump’s first week and already it’s becoming painful to watch. The word 'horror' springs to mind. Cancelling TTP? What the hell is he doing? I thought it was only some PR stunt to gain more votes.

Globalization, like it or not, is a fact, and The Trumpeters are trying to close Pandora’s Box while the rest of the world runs with it.

China And Indonesia are now already stepping in to salvage TTP, attempting to take the USA’s place, which they probably will because a Trump never backtracks, except when it’s time to pay up. One of the points of TTP was to attempt to keep the far Eastern economies under control, not to hand over the reins to them.

So where will this isolationist policy land America economically? In one fell swoop the USA is cutting its own imports through heavy taxation (a large part of which it needs for its own production (insert facepalm here)), while American foreign export goods will now just have to be heavily taxed all over the rest of the world as an inevitable reaction. That is an economic disaster for the USA! Do the Trumpeters really believe the rest of the world would just take all this just lying down? Unless everyone outside the USA is just desperate to pay double the price for an American built car, this will ruin the American economy in a very, very short time.

Which company, in its right mind, would want to invest heavily in production if it can't export its goods competitively? Even the uncertainty alone is sufficient to prevent investment, just as we can witness in the UK after BREXIT at this very moment in time.

Let’s face it; the world’s economy will not go into a depression just because the USA pulls out of it, as much as the Trump administration would like to believe this. That's why it's called a GLOBAL economy now. Other powers will happily take its place, filling the vacuum. In a world economy, the USA is, at this very moment, isolating itself hopelessly and will inevitably pay a dreadful price.

It’s global economy, and it's here to stay! I don't like it myself, but it's a reality. The USA is not the centre of the world anymore and will not be particularly missed (economically speaking) if China or anyone else takes its place.

Edited by npjnpj - January 23 2017 at 22:43

npjnpj wrote: Only a few days into Trump’s first week and already it’s becoming painful to watch. The word 'horror' springs to mind. Cancelling TTP? What the hell is he doing? I thought it was only some PR stunt to gain more votes. Globalization, like it or not, is a fact, and The Trumpeters are trying to close Pandora’s Box while the rest of the world runs with it. China And Indonesia are now already stepping in to salvage TTP, attempting to take the USA’s place, which they probably will because a Trump never backtracks, except when it’s time to pay up. One of the points of TTP was to attempt to keep the far Eastern economies under control, not to hand over the reins to them. So where will this isolationist policy land America economically? In one fell swoop the USA is cutting its own imports through heavy taxation (a large part of which it needs for its own production (insert facepalm here)), while American foreign export goods will now just have to be heavily taxed all over the rest of the world as an inevitable reaction. That is an economic disaster for the USA! Do the Trumpeters really believe the rest of the world would just take all this just lying down? Unless everyone outside the USA is just desperate to pay double the price for an American built car, this will ruin the American economy in a very, very short time. Which company, in its right mind, would want to invest heavily in production if it can't export its goods competitively? Even the uncertainty alone is sufficient to prevent investment, just as we can witness in the UK after BREXIT at this very moment in time. Let’s face it; the world’s economy will not go into a depression just because the USA pulls out of it, as much as the Trump administration would like to believe this. That's why it's called a GLOBAL economy now. Other powers will happily take its place, filling the vacuum. In a world economy, the USA is, at this very moment, isolating itself hopelessly and will inevitably pay a dreadful price. It’s global economy, and it's here to stay! I don't like it myself, but it's a reality. The USA is not the centre of the world anymore and will not be particularly missed (economically speaking) if China or anyone else takes its place.

npjnpj wrote: You're probably right; there are so many angles from which this can be looked at. Even so: even though, as you say, TPP was a bad deal, as most of these FTA's have been, the alternative to not having them might well be a whole lot worse for the (still) working population. We'll see.

I suppose we will. If one does acknowledge/believe it would not be beneficial (and likely detrimental) I can't see how things would be worse off without it. As said, trade is either pretty open/under a pre existing FTA for the area so I don't see why things may be worse without. Like I said I loathe Trump in just about every way, pains me he can take credit for this but the Dems, sold out to their donors and believing stale advice, dropped the ball on this. Shame is short run trump will win. Longer run, he can't bring back jobs. He can keep some here but that's it, and given his nominees labor wont fare very well here. But all this wont really be felt for years...so for now he will "win". Like he's taking over as wages have finally started rising for all workers and will take credit I'm sure. But I digress. TPP being axed I think was a good thing. If Indonesia and China do use this as a chance to set up the region in their favor, so be it. I was actually a bit confused by those comments. You are 100% right, we're heading for a multi polar world, or one with China as hegemon, but you seemed to then imply Trump is blowing a chance to maintain our position? Maybe I misinterpreted but seemed like you were arguing for US dominance. Personally im A OK with us no longer policing the world and letting other nations step up a bit. Long as they're ready.

Edited by JJLehto - January 24 2017 at 05:20

JJLehto wrote: Quite the opposite, the Dems now have a primo opportunity to start rebuilding now. 2018 and 2020 and for the future. Another New Deal coalition, quite literally. Or they can stick to neoliberalism, which ya know they'll win here and there but it wont be anything more than political swings.

Maybe I'm biasing my own social group here, but sacrificing neoliberalism would be to lose a massive voting bloc. Again, remember that of the people who voted on the economy, Clinton won double digits. Especially in the markets of the future, belief in free-market capitalism is high. The tech industry and large swaths of educated Millennials depend on that faction within the party. Going full populist in 2020 against Donald Trump would likely destroy the party completely within one election cycle. You cannot out-populist Trump, and the splinter in the Democratic coalition would be 4 more years of Trump and the end of a 200-year-old party.

No, that was not a passing casual statement, so let me repeat it: going populist now would destroy the party. The core of all populism is not ideological, it is ethnic, religious, and moral. Abiding by the whims of the in-group is incompatible with principled governance. You cannot erect a policy around a people. A Democratic populism against a Republican populism would be a political race war, where the (white) majority would be held by the Republicans. Those concerned with functional governance would by and large abstain or form their own opposition (a third wheel). Either way, the landslide loss would be for the Democrats, and the divisions combined with repeated electoral failures would sunder the party. Populism is not the future of the party, it's a siren enticing all to the rocks.

JJLehto wrote: A large company trying to reduce competition, blowing things up when the gov tries to intervene. The glory of the markets

Typical rent-seeking. Companies get too big, unfettered by law with any teeth, and they will abuse that position.

JJLehto wrote: TPP was more about containing China. Later, Obama and co actually switched their argument to this. So yeah it was economic containment of China, rather than expansion of the signatories. Thing is, given the already fairly open market with these countries, it wouldn't have really contained them. As this EPI (a progressive economic think tank) article notes China already is deeply entrenched with the TPP Asian countries, often using them as destinations for their parts, which TPP nations may then build and ship to the US. So they argue the deal could entrench or even strengthen China's economic power in the region.

Potential concerns can be addressed in negotiations. Rules of origin were one of the main goals in the negotiation of TPP, reducing that perverse incentive for China to use other countries as proxies for their goods while intentionally inhibiting trade on our end. The article you linked seemed to completely neglect that China's position is better in that regard without TPP. The result of killing a large-scale agreement of that kind is essentially that we're either going to have to choose between crushing other countries with our own onerous protections (to prevent China's impact), or accept losing out to China. Either way, we're putting ourselves in position to lose since we cannot feasibly negotiate better deals with Asian countries than can China. It absolutely was a geopolitical agreement, but one that we're likely going to suffer for failing to make.

Also, let me again be clear. On the whole, our economy has benefited from free trade agreements. No agreement is perfect, but we're winning out on the whole, and the need for improvements is no argument for tossing the entire thing. TPP was fraught with issues, but the answer to that is openness, not protectionism. I'm not certain the baby didn't go out with the bathwater on this one. Most importantly, the core complaints against the agreements are both not linked to the agreements but rather to free trade itself (but few take that seriously), and the solutions are... antediluvian, provincial idiocy. You know what's going to kill your jobs? Machines. Proposing solutions for 1954 in 2017 won't do jack sh*t, not for Trump and not for populist Democrats.

JJLehto wrote: If Indonesia and China do use this as a chance to set up the region in their favor, so be it. I was actually a bit confused by those comments. You are 100% right, we're heading for a multi polar world, or one with China as hegemon, but you seemed to then imply Trump is blowing a chance to maintain our position? Maybe I misinterpreted but seemed like you were arguing for US dominance. Personally im A OK with us no longer policing the world and letting other nations step up a bit. Long as they're ready.

They can't be; they aren't vulnerable for lack of a standing army. China can muscle its neighbors around by being 100 times their economies and 100 times their populations. Army or no, the numbers offer no recourse. Remember, unlike conflicts between individuals within a country, there's no world government to go to if a sovereign nation doesn't play by the rules. You can appeal to your neighbors, but everyone has their own problems-- and when it comes to China, they have an economy nearly as large as all of their neighbors combined. You need a large international interest to keep everyone honest. The U.S. was the teeth of that order, owing not just to its military might but to its economic pole position. Under Donald Trump, there is no assurance, and there is no apparatus for organizing any defense (especially as economic turmoil from automation continues and nationalist insurgencies continue to be mounted). If I'm a small country in 2017, I'm going nuclear, no doubt. Can't trust anyone but myself, so if I go down, I'm taking everyone else with me. Now the world is a much less safe, much less cooperative, much less productive place for all of us. This problem is why postwar politicians built the world order that Donald Trump wants to scrap.

Will he really succeed in breaking apart the world order? Hard to say. With the E.U. struggling with Brexit, South Korea impeaching their leader while being threatened by nukes from the North, and the Middle East preoccupied with Daesh, it's hard to imagine international cooperation unless China is the one to do it. China has some incentive to try, and the U.S. will lose badly on that exchange if it happens.


Edited by Gamemako - January 25 2017 at 22:00

Quick follow up to all that Gamemako. I do notice an inconsistency. Talk of globalization and all but then "winning" and containing China. I thought the intention of markets, global trade, of neoliberalism was to just let the pieces fall as they will? Trade isn't between countries, we're taught in class, but producers and consumers and we should let the allocations sort themselves out and not let politics get in the way. Right? Its the auto workers, unions, farmers that lobby the government for protection and threaten to vote em out. Leaders use nationalism to play these global chess games. 

Another one of his promises has become abundantly true:

Boy, has he made America grate again.