Two nights after the election, Bill O'Reilly commented
Is there a civil war brewing in the U.S.A.? That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. As we mentioned last night, the voters rebelled and Donald Trump won the presidency because of that rebellion. Just a few hours after the election was called though, some anti-Trump protesters took to the streets. Nothing major but the spectacle got intense in Oakland.
After video was shown, O'Reilly continued
The main beef seems to be that left-wing protesters don't respect an honest election. By the way, that's a hallmark around the world. Every communist and socialist takeover from Cuba to Venezuela to Soviet Russia back in the early 20th century featured violence and assaults on freedom. Here in the U.S.A. We honor protests, but increasingly we are seeing people who want our system destroyed.
Since the election, there have been marchers throughout the nation who could take comfort from tweets arguing "we should march on Washington and stop this travesty' because "the world is laughing at us" as the "electoral college (has) made a laughingstock out of our nation." "We should have a revolution in this country" goes one tweet, noting the candidate "lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election."
There is a problem, however. The tweets (now deleted, but preserved) are from 2012, not 2016 and were all made by one individual, Donald J. Trump, when according to Digby "he thought Obama was going to win the electoral college and Mitt Romney was going to win the popular vote." At the time, he saw the possibility of an Electoral College defeat coupled with a popular vote victory, concluded "we are not a democracy," and advocated revolution because "our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble... like never before."
Perhaps Bill O'Reilly can ask Donald Trump whether he still believes revolution is the answer when a presidential candidate with the greatest number of votes is denied the presidency. It would make for great television we'll never get to see.
But whether or not the president-elect does what he should, the lesson for liberals is that they have to get serious again -- not just about winning elections but also about taking opposition as a mark of an energetic politics rather than the Manichean manipulations of the forces of evil. The mark of a healthy democracy is the preference for argument rather than invective. Those are the roots the left must reclaim. True, we live in an era when serious debate isn’t much valued. Perhaps a Democratic Party that spends a few years out of power can find its way back by reminding all of us how it is done.
If so, that would be breaking the mold of recent years. The GOP held down its losses in the House of Representatives, improbably maintained control of the Senate, and won a presidential race which the left, mainstream media, and even the Republican Party itself believed highly unlikely unless it became friendlier to hispanics. You might have noticed that it didn't. Steve M. rhetorically asks
And you do know that the victorious Republican presidential candidate this year was Donald Trump, don't you, Professor? Someone who portrayed his opponent as (in your words) a "force of evil" throughout his campaign? Someone whose campaign was fifteen straight months of invective? And you realize that in four straight elections -- in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 -- Republicans have vowed to "take our country back" from Democrats, as if Democrats are usurpers rather than fellow citizens who've won elections?
Carter wrote
What I hope happens ... is that liberals of the present day rediscover the virtues of the ascendant liberalism of the 1950s through the 1970s that Democrats seem to want to emulate. These virtues included a toleration for disagreement, an effort to avoid reducing complex issues to applause lines, and a fundamental humility as they went about governing. This doesn’t mean the old-style liberals didn’t believe, earnestly, that they were right on the issues. But they accepted that their nation was a diverse place, that their opponents were entitled to their say, that government should not try to do everything at once, and that policy should be made in a way that could create a working consensus.
Appropriately incensed, SM responds Professor, you do know that the Democratic nominee this year was Hillary Clinton, don't you? A woman who's always been eager to reach across the aisle? A woman who avidly pursued Republican votes throughout the general-election campaign? A woman who bragged about many endorsements from Republicans?
In the good old days, liberals accepted "that their opponents were entitled to their say... and that policy should be made in a way that could create a working consensus. That sounds a lot like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which proved unpopular and has been an albatross for Democratic congressional candidates and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Matt Grossman and David A. Hopkins note
As many frustrated Democrats pointed out, the ACA was far from the exercise in single-payer socialized medicine implied by Republican critics. In fact, the law's structure is striking for the many ways in which it attempts to avoid conservative accusations of "big government" liberalism. Republicans favor federalism over nationalization. The ACA creates state-based insurance exchanges and uses state Medicaid partnerships to deliver services. Republicans favor private sector implementation over increasing government bureaucracy. The ACA delivers benefits mainly through private insurance companies. Republicans favor free market incentives. The ACA uses internet-based shopping marketplaces, which allows consumers to compare prices and requires insurers to compete for their business.
The GOP was remade by and for the Tea Party, which encouraged extremist polictics and a confrontational approach, attacked the Republican establishment, and laid the groundwork for the Trump candidacy. Health care reform was famoulsy one of the movement's original targets and despite its (modest) success has been an albatross around the neck of congressional candidates and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Spurred by Tea Party activism, the Republican Party became "ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unmoved by convetnional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." And extremely successful.
Now Stephen Carter and others want liberals to play nice and recognize diversity of opinion. If they do so, they may have the satisfaction of always having the adult in the room, pointing the way to consensus opinion and compromise, giving them a warm feeling all over when they subsequently get their heads handed to them again.
Centrist Democratic senator Heidi Heitkamp is getting that warm bipartisan feeling all over and remarks It’s time to move forward. We must work to unite a country that has been so divided throughout this long election, and that will be President-elect Trump’s primary task. As I said back in May, if Donald Trump is elected president – as he was – there will be an opportunity to sit down and have a conversation about what that agenda looks like. We’re going to have disagreements, but we better all figure out how to come up with an agenda for the American people.
After the second presidential debate, Trump had tweeted "'it's a good thing Trump isn't in charge of the law in this country'- Hillary Clinton; 'yeah, because you'd be in jail'- Donald Trump." Good luck, there, Senator Heitkamp.
The North Dakota Democrat probably is pleased there are indications President Trump might accede to the advice of more sober members of his party not to appoint a special prosecutor to target Clinton. If so, he may be even more anxious to implement their policy agenda, and quickly.
On Thursday, the Speaker of the House held a private meeting with the President-elect (alternatively, and misleadingly "the President-elect held a meeting with the Speaker of the House"). As Charlie Pierce would note: "the usual disclaimer: Paul Ryan is the biggest fake in American politics." Salon's Taylor Link writes that afterward
“What people don’t realize is that Medicare is going broke, that Medicare is going to have price controls. Because of Obamacare, Medicaid is in fiscal straits,” Ryan said in an interview with Fox News Thursday. “So you have to deal with those issues if you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Medicare has got some serious problems because of Obamacare. Those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.”
However, the major portion of Medicare Part A, the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund, is now solvent until 2028. Jonathan Chait explains
The Medicare trust fund has been extended 11 years as a result of the passage of Obamacare, whose cost reforms have helped bring health care inflation to historic lows. It is also untrue that repealing Obamacare requires changing traditional Medicare. But Ryan clearly believes he needs to make this claim in order to sell his plan, or probably even to convince fellow Republicans to support it.
One of those fellow Republicans is Donald Trump, whose transition website now pledges the incoming President to "modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation- and beyond." "Modernizing" is GOP shorthand for privatization, and being "ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation" fosters the myth that without cuts, Medicare will become extinct.
The Ryan-Pence Administration has not even begun, and the warning signs already are there. The Trumpists are reticent to prosecute their biggest political enemy but Paul Ryan is pleased that his agenda to eviscerate the social safety net will find a friendly reception. Once Trump was declared victor, Ryan wasted no time in exulting
"The House majority is bigger than expected, we won more seats than anyone expected, and much of that is thanks to Donald Trump. Donald Trump provided the kind of coattails that got a lot of people over the finish line so that we could maintain our strong House and Senate majorities. Now we have important work to do.
Ryan is from Wisconsin and as the poor, the sick, the aged, the disabled, and others are likely to find out, he isn't just whistling Dixie.
In an opinion piece in Thursday's Washington Post, Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) explains
My district reflects much of this country’s diversity. Ann Arbor is a university- and start-up town. Ypsilanti is urban, and its issues mirror those of larger cities such as Detroit and Chicago. Dearborn is headquarters to Ford Motor Co. and has the largest Muslim population in the country. The “Downrivers” — a collection of communities south of Detroit — mean auto plants and manufacturing with strong union membership.
The congresswoman maintains "From the beginning, I knew the Downrivers would support Trump both in the Republican primary and in the general. I witness the emotions and passions of their residents every day, and I believe they are what elected Trump president."
Dingell, who notes that she took Bill Clinton "grocery shopping" the day before the Michigan primary, brags
I was the crazy one. I predicted that Hillary Clinton was in trouble in Michigan during the Democratic primary. I observed that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination for president. And at Rotary clubs, local chambers of commerce, union halls and mosques, I noted that we could see a Trump presidency. “That’s Debbie, it’s hyperbole, she is nuts.”
Unfortunately, Dingell was a little late displaying her psychic power. On October 21, 2015 The Detroit News reported
Vice President Joe Biden’s decision Wednesday not to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 gained front runner Hillary Clinton a congressional endorsement in Michigan. U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, has been among a handful of Democratic leaders in Michigan and across the country who were waiting to see what Biden did before choosing sides in the race. Sounding relieved that she didn’t have to choose between the former U.S. secretary of state and Biden, Dingell said Wednesday she is now endorsing Clinton over Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose socialist policy views have energized the left wing of the Democratic Party in Michigan. “I love Bernie Sanders, but Bernie Sanders can’t win a presidential election,” Dingell told The Detroit News. “We can’t afford to lose the White House next year. "Bernie Sanders cant' win a presidential election," Representative Dingell said at the time.
Anyone can make a mistake, and Dingell wasn't the only Democratic member of Congress who supported Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. There were (prior to Clinton becoming the party's presumptive nominee) approximately 163 other U.S. Representatives, as well as 41 U.S. Senators, who endorsed HRC.
There was only one U.S. Senator and only 9 Representatives who backed Sanders over Clinton, who once referred to the Trans-Pacific Partnership as "the gold standard in trade deals," Yet, Dingell was the only one of the 200-plus members of Congress who opted for the former Secretary of State over the Vermont senator (either before or after he declared his candidacy) to write on April 27, 2016 “The working men and women of Michigan have seen firsthand the devastating impact of bad trade policies that cost jobs and hurt American manufacturing, and the TPP would be more of the same,”
Representative Dingell's credibility should be considered in light of her support, as a public official from Michigan, for a candidate clearly less committed than her opponent to the trade and economic policies which would help rehabilitate a state and a congressional district dependent upon manufacturing and related industries. She backed the wrong horse, for her party, her state, and her country.
The congresswomna now notes her displeasure about the campaign run by the individual whose bandwagon she was so eager to jump upon, as well as how she foresaw support of Michigan voters for Donald Trump. Color me unimpressed.
Some fifteen years ago, a white male co-worker and friend in his mid-fifties told me that the next battleground in American politics would be illegal immigration. Republican and very conservative, he argued that a restrictionist immigration policy, to include a border wall and deportation of illegal immigrants, would be the GOP's route to concentrating its political power.
Many years have passed since then, and the political impact of the immigration debate has swung wildly. For several years, the issue favored Democrats, who have marched in lockstep against deporting illegal immigrants who are obeying the criminal law, against a hardened wall across the entire southern border, and with few qualms about sanctuary cities. In a few states, the law has been changed to permit pursuit of a driver's license or to extend in-state college tuition rates to the children of "undocumented" immigrants. (It is not only Democrats who have supported these reforms, especially the latter.)
Republicans, meanwhile, have had difficulty finding one voice on the issue. A minority of individuals from the party less favorable to immigrants has called for deportation. But even these have been on the defensive, to the extent that its 2012 presidential nominee advocated the rather lame "self-deportation," short for "please do us a favor and leave on your own."
"Secure the border first" or "first secure the border" has become a common mantra, but not all Republicans have joined the chorus. And there has been no concerted, unified effort to force cities to relinquish their sanctuary status nor to establish the principle that if only bona-fide residents of a state can receive in-state tuition rates, only bona-fide, legal residents of the country should be extended that break.
With Democrats the pro-immigration policy and Republicans the off-and-on pro- and anti- immigration party, Democrats have gained the clear upper hand on the matter, to the point that the failure of the party in mid-term elections has often been attributed in large measure to the failure of minorities- including hispanics- to vote in off-term elections. However, noting the willingness of hispanics (to a lesser extent, other minorities) to vote in presidential election years, the mainstream media has argued that the Democratic Party has a virtual lock on the presidential race.
How can this be about race when Trump won some Obama voters? There’s an equally easy answer: John McCain indulged racial fears, and Mitt Romney played on racial resentment, but they refused to go further. To borrow from George Wallace, they refused to cry “nigger.” This is important. By rejecting the politics of explicit racism and white backlash, they moved the political battleground to nominally colorblind concerns. Race was still a part of these clashes—it’s unavoidable—but neither liberals nor conservatives would litigate the idea of a pluralistic, multiracial democracy. Looking back, I thought this meant we had a consensus. It appears, instead, that we had a detente. And Trump shattered it. With his jeremiads against Hispanics and Muslims—with his visions of dystopian cities and radicalized refugees—Trump told white Americans that their fears and anger were justified. And that this fear and anger should drive their politics. Trump forged a politics of white tribalism, and white people embraced it.
McCain and Romney moved the political battleground to nominally colorblind concerns. My friend understood that immigration was a simmering issue but merely expected it to be raised to a major issue within a few years. However, it took several years because it was for so long only a minor issue. Hispanics and their liberal friends, well aware of the stakes and finding the debate pertinent to them, turned their ire against Republicans while conservatives found other issues, among them guns, gay rights, taxes, perhaps abortion and the Supreme Court (but I repeat myself), to become exorcised about.
No more, once antagonism and harshness replaced a somewhat vaccilatory appeal. Donald Trump announced his candidacy by declaring When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
From there, it was game on. Democrats and the media engaged him on the issue and Trump kept talking about The Wall. He spoke relatively little about deporting illegal immigrants because the thought- visually imagined- of forcibly removing human beings, including children, was more than their precious consciences could accept. The Wall, however expensive, impractical, and unlikely, would do no such thing and was far more acceptable. (Conservatives may know, even like, an undocumented worker- but are unlikely to know any Mexicans who want to come across the border.)
Donald Trump moved immigration to the forefront of the American debate and it quickly became his signature issue. He won the election. Ascribe that to racial animus (as does Bouie), fear of loss of jobs, or concern about paying "benefits," directly or indirectly, to non-citizens. But opposition to immigration- and not only to illegal immigration- played a major role in Tuesday's election, and without it we would not have a President-elect Trump.
We should blame all those people around the Clintons more than the Clintons themselves, and the Clintons themselves deserve a ridiculous amount of blame. Hillary Clinton was just an ambitious person who wanted to be president. There are a lot of people like that. But she was enabled. The Democratic establishment is a club unwelcoming to outsiders, because outsiders don’t first look out for the club. The Clintons will be gone now. For the sake of the country, let them take the hangers-on with them.
Amen. However, he adds
The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn’t show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton’s emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College,...
When a nominee wins the national popular vote and is defeated in the Electoral College because of a string of narrow losses in several states, any one of a number of things can legitimately be blamed. They include the Electoral College, Jim Comey, and unfair coverage of Clinton's e-mails (lazy Bernie voters, not so much).
The Democratic establishment, whom he maintains "has beclowned itself and is finished," also will plead "just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we'll be fine."
The GOP's presidential candidate did overreach- or at least reached as far as anyone humanly could. When he announced his candidacy, he claimed Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," He lectured one opponent when he tweeted "So true. Jeb Bush is crazy, who cares that he speaks Mexican, this is America, English!" He called a Judge born in Indiana a Mexican, and told a journalist "Go back to Univision."
And of course, the wall, his "big, beautiful wall," which got ten feet higher every time he became annoyed.
But Democrats found out that in the mouth of the right messenger, there was now way for Republicans to overreach on immigration. None, because Trump ostensibly tried, and his crowds merely cheered him more the further he went.
Perhaps, as Newell maintains, Democrats can and "must win more white voters.... in a way that doesn’t erode the anti-racist or anti-sexist planks of the modern party, which are non-negotiable." But make no mistake. Their presidential candidate came up against a candidate who made statements as hate-filled as any major party presidential aspirant has since at least George Wallace in 1968, who received a whopping 13.5% of the vote.
Their presidential candidate came up against a GOP nominee who failed to unite his party, had never served in public office, and has a lifetime record of deceit, dishonesty, and depravity. "If the butterfly had teeth like the tiger, he'd never make it out of the hanger," George Peppard once remarked in his role as Polish-American detective "Banacek." The fictional character never anticipated a Donald Trump, who had teeth like a tiger. His major issue was opposition to immigration. And he won.
"Everything that Democrats and pretty much anyone else thought they understood about politics was proven wrong this year," writes Politico's Edward-Isaac Dovere, "with a resounding exclamation mark Tuesday night."
Last Thursday, another Politico reporter demonstrated just how wrong common wisdom could be when he remarked
Hillary Clinton is besting Donald Trump by an historic 30-point margin among Florida Hispanics, according to a new bipartisan poll that indicates Latinos could play an outsized role in delivering the White House to a Democrat for the third election in a row. Clinton’s 60 percent to 30 percent advantage over Trump with Florida Hispanics overall is fueled by outsized support from voters of Puerto Rican descent, who favor her 71 perccent to 19 percent, according to the survey of 800 likely Hispanic voters jointly conducted for Univision by Republican-leaning Tarrance Group and Democratic-leaning Bendixen & Amandi International.... “These Florida numbers are not only ominous for Donald Trump — they’re downright terrifying for Republicans nationwide,” said Fernand Amandi, Bendixen & Amandi’s pollster, who called Clinton’s 30-point margin “historic.” “The share of the Hispanic vote is growing every election and this will be the third presidential election in Florida where Hispanics trend heavily against the GOP,” Amandi said. “And if that continues, it could turn Florida into the next California in future presidential elections, a blue anchor state.”
Five days later in Florida: Donald J. Trump- 4,591,277 votes (49%)
Hillary R. Clinton- 4,462,414 votes (48%)
It looks like it's going to be a few years, maybe a decade, maybe never, before Florida becomes the next California. Notwithstanding its diversity, Florida is still a southern state with a lot of white southerners. Or as Chris Hayes tweeted approximately 9:00 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday: "Racial polarization looking like not such a mathematically suicidal play for the GOP."
