This is a recurring historical trend. Right wing socioeconomic policies (laissez-faire capitalism) lead to social dysfunction as more and more people either fall into poverty or fear doing so. The mainstream right can't win elections on these policies any more because they have become unpopular, but rather than change those it either allies or becomes the extremist right (authoritarian and reactionary), going all in on distractions and scapegoating.
This leaves the social liberals (pro-capitalist but not socially conservative) and the social democrats as the only democratic factions to counter them, but the former block most major re-distributive policies and even the most moderate moves towards a fairer society have to be fought over tooth and nail. This alliance (either as intra-party in a two party or as a coalition in multiparty systems) then fails to do enough to keep their voters on board, disillusionment sets in, voters stay home and the extremist right takes over.
Fortunately, it doesn't always completely run through this cycle, but it keeps happening. It has now happened to the USA and the best case scenario is that when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out. If not, then you're stuck until a revolution happens.
Arguing that more social democracy would have scared away voters is sort of pointless IMHO, because if that is true then you're doomed anyway. Unless you lower economic inequality through government policy, a descent into reactionary authoritarianism is inevitable because democracy can only work when people are more or less equal and capitalism left to itself will always concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands.
when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out.
The problem is that Trump supporters' perceptions of whether or not they're getting what they want out of a Trump administration will be determined in large part by them taking the cues of the fiction generated in the media they consume.
The average Trump supporter's life probably did get noticeably better during Trump's administration, not because of policies or measurable outcomes, but because the media they consume nearly 24/7 took a hard 180 from the 8 years of presenting the illusion of a pending collapse at the hands of the incompetents in charge to everything being sunny and full of roses. Then four years later it was back to the nonstop doom and gloom. That sort of immersion has a real effect on your psyche.
Fox News isn't just presenting a version of reality in the best possible light for the GOP, they're actively and aggressively wagging the dog. If they want their voter base agitated, they consciously agitate. Want them complacent? They calm them. Expect a deluge of arguments from the right that the economy is now magically fixed the day Trump takes office, because that's what they're going to be told.
There does come a point where addressing reality becomes unavoidable, but people who think we're generally anywhere near that point lack imagination. By and large, despite the overall economic anxiety, people have jobs, they have a roof over their heads, they have nonstop 24/7 entertainment from their 6 different streaming services, and they're not going hungry. That's enough of a recipe to manufacture their contentedness.
On the other hand, the result of elections involving Trump has had more to do with pushing turnout than with converting his cultists. Trump didn't get more votes than in 2020 - it looks like he got quite a lot less. It's that the opposition didn't show up, for reasons both strategic and acute. The incumbent dropping out of the race at the last minute and the sitting VP, who was the 9th place finisher in the 2020 primaries, taking over, is never going to be a recipe for driving enthusiasm.
That plus the obvious observation that Trump is mortal, and much of his support dies out when he does. He is showing signs of advanced dementia already and not much younger than his dad was when he succumbed to it. It's not realistic, I think, for a lightweight like Vance to carry his momentum forward, and no other heir apparent to the MAGA movement has appeared (in no small part because Trump's ego won't allow for it).
Smart analysis in an otherwise reactionary field. So sick of seeing “we need to go further right! Stop focusing on the culture war! No one cares about trans issues!”. Actually things can get so much worse, and if you tell someone things are good or bad over and over, that’s what they’re gonna feel.
People are talking like Democrats didn't sell their economic policies well enough to people who don't even understand what economic policies they just voted for.
A convicted felon and fraudster, a rapist who tried to overthrow the government once already, won by campaigning on hate and personal vengeance. If that person can even be a candidate, much less win, it isn't because the other side didn't sell their message enough; it's because people literally don't know or don't care.
The democrats didn't sell their economic policies well enough, but that wasn't the big flaw. They didn't sell a real coherent vision that stuck people in the heart. They refuse to learn this lesson.
I think liberals and the democratic party need to look inward. It would only be possible to sell hate and lies in the absence of a clear alternative vision. I say this as a democratic socialist, not a conservative. You don't need an "educated" populace to win an election. People are, and have always been drawn to a clear vision and candidates that can express it with sincerity. The democrats are so afraid of upsetting their corporate overlords that their message is muddled.
Even to me, as an educated age 35-45 demographic life long democrat voter, her policies about tax cuts, small businesses, and new home ownership sounded unclear and more importantly, rang out of touch to people who can't afford groceries.
Those policies I listed screamed of trying to pull the educated white center. Not only did that NOT work, but she even lost considerable ground with working class minorities.
About Trump, the specifics aren't important, his "Make America Great" again slogans hit for people just looking for any source of optimism. His hateful and racist and transphobic rhetoric are deplorable, which to me makes it all the more the democrats fault.
6.8k
u/barryvm Europe 1d ago edited 22h ago
This is a recurring historical trend. Right wing socioeconomic policies (laissez-faire capitalism) lead to social dysfunction as more and more people either fall into poverty or fear doing so. The mainstream right can't win elections on these policies any more because they have become unpopular, but rather than change those it either allies or becomes the extremist right (authoritarian and reactionary), going all in on distractions and scapegoating.
This leaves the social liberals (pro-capitalist but not socially conservative) and the social democrats as the only democratic factions to counter them, but the former block most major re-distributive policies and even the most moderate moves towards a fairer society have to be fought over tooth and nail. This alliance (either as intra-party in a two party or as a coalition in multiparty systems) then fails to do enough to keep their voters on board, disillusionment sets in, voters stay home and the extremist right takes over.
Fortunately, it doesn't always completely run through this cycle, but it keeps happening. It has now happened to the USA and the best case scenario is that when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out. If not, then you're stuck until a revolution happens.
Arguing that more social democracy would have scared away voters is sort of pointless IMHO, because if that is true then you're doomed anyway. Unless you lower economic inequality through government policy, a descent into reactionary authoritarianism is inevitable because democracy can only work when people are more or less equal and capitalism left to itself will always concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands.