Thought provoking read

[Gob]

Amid the ongoing protests against President Trump, calls for “resistance” among Democratic politicians and activists, and the overheated rhetoric casting Trump and his supporters as fascists and xenophobes, an outsider might be forgiven for thinking that America has been taken over by a small faction of rightwing nationalists.

America is deeply divided, but it’s not divided between fascists and Democrats. It’s more accurate to say that America is divided between the elites and everybody else, and Trump’s election was a rejection of the elites.

That’s not to say plenty of Democrats and progressives don’t vehemently oppose Trump. But the crowds of demonstrators share something in common with our political and media elites: they still don’t understand how Trump got elected, or why millions of Americans continue to support him. Even now, recent polls show that more Americans support Trump’s executive order on immigration than oppose it, but you wouldn’t know it based on the media coverage.

Support for Trump’s travel ban, indeed his entire agenda for immigration reform, is precisely the sort of thing mainstream media, concentrated in urban enclaves along our coasts, has trouble comprehending. The fact is, many Americans who voted for Trump, especially those in suburban and rural areas across the heartland and the south, have long felt disconnected from the institutions that govern them. On immigration and trade, the issues that propelled Trump to the White House, they want the status quo to change.

During his first two weeks in office, whenever Trump has done something that leaves political and media elites aghast, his supporters cheer. They like that he told Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto he might have to send troops across the border to stop “bad hombres down there”. They like that he threatened to pull out of an Obama-era deal to accept thousands of refugees Australia refuses to admit. They want him to dismantle Dodd-Frank financial regulations for Wall Street and rethink US trade deals. This is why they voted for him.

The failure to understand why these measures are popular with millions of Americans stems from a deep sense of disconnection in American society that didn’t begin with Trump or the 2016 election. For years, millions of voters have felt left behind by an economic recovery that largely excluded them, a culture that scoffed at their beliefs and a government that promised change but failed to deliver.

Continues here...

[Econoline]

That opinion piece is mostly BS, with a salting of outright lies (e.g., "the Tea Party didn’t begin as a reaction against Obama’s presidency"; "more Americans support Trump’s executive order on immigration than oppose it"; "They [i.e., Trump's supporters] want him to dismantle Dodd-Frank financial regulations for Wall Street"...oh, and--of course--"Trump is no fascist.") Old, recycled BS. Manure.

And then I got to the end and found this:

John Daniel Davidson is a senior correspondent for the Federalist. He lives in Austin, Texas

Aha.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

The Federalist


RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The Federalist is an English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. The Federalist has been described as influential in conservative and libertarian circles (Wikipedia). Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is usually well sourced.

And lest someone glom onto that last phrase...of course I needn't point out (but I will, anyway) that the piece by Mr. Davidson doesn't pretend to be "reporting"; it's clearly labled "opinion" and doesn't purport to be anything else.

Also too:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/02 ... e-f/198721

As the online news and commentary landscape continues to expand, the nascent conservative web magazine The Federalist has quickly carved out a role as a brash, anti-establishment site. It has also become an outlet for often-rabid anti-LGBT talking points.

Launched in September 2013 as a "web magazine on politics, policy, and culture," The Federalist is helmed by publisher Ben Domenech, a co-founder of the right-wing blog RedState.com and senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for its opposition to climate science and funding from industry sources like the Koch brothers. Co-founder Sean Davis came to conservative journalism after a career in GOP politics, having worked for Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senior editors David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway and senior writer Robert Tracinski round out The Federalist's leadership.

In its short existence, The Federalist has won plaudits from conservative organizations and activists, not least those best known for their anti-LGBT advocacy. A look at the website's track record on LGBT issues leaves little doubt as to why The Federalist counts some of the most notorious anti-LGBT groups among its most ardent fans.

Touted by Domenech as a publication "that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment," The Federalist regularly frames its opposition to LGBT equality as brave defiance of elite conventions. This posture leads The Federalist to inveigh against even the most basic protections for LGBT people.

Their main schtick seem to be framing everything they say as fighting against a nebulous, undefined cadre of "elites" (if there is a definition at all, it seems to be "anyone who is not a conservative or a libertarian") and "Senior Correspondent" Davidson's opinion piece fits right into that mold.

[Lord Jim]

That opinion piece is mostly BS, with a salting of outright lies

I'm pretty much inclined to agree with that description regarding this article...

But I think I'll also save that quote to use as a descriptor for the next time I see something posted here written by Jim Wrong...

Or Paul Krugman...

Or Brad DeLong...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Their main schtick seem to be framing everything they say as fighting against a nebulous, undefined cadre of "elites" (if there is a definition at all, it seems to be "anyone who is not a conservative or a libertarian") and "Senior Correspondent" Davidson's opinion piece fits right into that mold.

And yet anyone who voted for Trump is called names, told he/she is merely uninformed (aka stupid) and they would not have done so if they only "saw the light" (aka thought the way you do).

There is truth in this portion:

The failure to understand why these measures are popular with millions of Americans stems from a deep sense of disconnection in American society that didn’t begin with Trump or the 2016 election. For years, millions of voters have felt left behind by an economic recovery that largely excluded them, a culture that scoffed at their beliefs and a government that promised change but failed to deliver.

I said early on in the election process that the more the so called elite called trump supporters names and degraded them, the more they will dig in their heals. Many trump supporters would not admit to it for fear of being ostrasized (thus the polls being so wrong) but in the "privacy" of the voting booth three cardboard shields, they voted for Trump. Some because they went along with his agenda and others just because he was not a poitician. Those same politicians who have said one thing and done another for as long as I can remember. Same old, same old. Hope and change.
Yeah right.
There is a disconnect between the "coastal people" and the "fly over people".
The coastal "elites" are all for the underdog, the down trodden, the minority except for when they are a white male redneck in bumfuck middle America. Then he is called stupid and told with his white privelege he should be in much better financial shape.

And having "more of us" doesn't work when the electoral college comes into play which was how the campaign played it.

[Crackpot]

The thing isn't that the measures are popular but people are being ignored. Too much focus on the "big picture" and you miss small areas that are being destroyed. Keep it up and this small areas just keep growing and growing.

[Crackpot]

The irony is pe people are so used to being lied to that they really didn't think that Trump could or would do what he campaigned on (or if he did it would be done in a moderated and sensible fashion). People just don't realize how fragile our system is and how easily it can be hobbled by a group or groups of people that either don't understand or don't care about the needs of the people.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Too much focus on the "big picture" and you miss small areas that are being destroyed. Keep it up and this small areas just keep growing and growing.

Much like trumps rise to power.

Small areas (aka middle America) forgotten, ignored, ridiculed by the "coastals" and/or washington elite. The push back started and grew until you get Trump.

[Sue U]

The coastal "elites" are all for the underdog, the down trodden, the minority except for when they are a white male redneck in bumfuck middle America. Then he is called stupid and told with his white privelege he should be in much better financial shape.

Small areas (aka middle America) forgotten, ignored, ridiculed by the "coastals" and/or washington elite.

Who exactly are these "coastal elites" who are ignoring, insulting and ridiculing middle America? Because I call bullshit. This is yet another boogeyman invented by the right-wing punditocracy specifically to induce a sense of resentment and fuel a myth of grievance. Did Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren or Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi or anyone in the Democratic Party leadership call "white male rednecks in bumfuck middle America" stupid? Or is it just the right-wing media weasels like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Steve Bannon who spread the lie that "those liberals think you're stupid," and "those liberals don't care about you, they only care about The Blacks and The Mooselimbs and destroying America by persecuting Christians with Sharia law."

[Guinevere]

The coastal "elites" are all for the underdog, the down trodden, the minority except for when they are a white male redneck in bumfuck middle America. Then he is called stupid and told with his white privelege he should be in much better financial shape.

Small areas (aka middle America) forgotten, ignored, ridiculed by the "coastals" and/or washington elite.

Who exactly are these "coastal elites" who are ignoring, insulting and ridiculing middle America? Because I call bullshit. This is yet another boogeyman invented by the right-wing punditocracy specifically to induce a sense of resentment and fuel a myth of grievance. Did Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren or Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi or anyone in the Democratic Party leadership call "white male rednecks in bumfuck middle America" stupid? Or is it just the right-wing media weasels like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Steve Bannon who spread the lie that "those liberals think you're stupid," and "those liberals don't care about you, they only care about The Blacks and The Mooselimbs and destroying America by persecuting Christians with Sharia law."

This. Exactly.

Why aren't you the "coastal elite" yourself, older? You live in Long Island, and you went to college and sent your kids to college. You own a home. You saved money. Because NO ONE in Middle American went to college, or sent their kids to college, or owns a home, or has savings?? Do you see how absolutely ridiculous this attempt at division is, and how little sense it makes?

[Crackpot]

Bo one cared that the only good paying jobs in whole communities left overseas leaving large portions of the country in perpetual decline. And yes when the complained. They were belittled for not getting a proper education.

[Lord Jim]

Who exactly are these "coastal elites" who are ignoring, insulting and ridiculing middle America?

Well, anybody who accuses people of "voting against their own interests" (as I have seen numerous liberal pundits do; Katrina vanden Heuvel says it all the time ) is essentially saying that those people are too dumb or ignorant to know what's best for them...

It's enormously condescending...

I saw Karen Finney a while back, (when she had a gig on MSNBC; before she went to work as the press spokesperson for Hillary) really hit the nail on the head in a segment she did about this...

She talked about having many liberal friends who would talk this way(for anyone who doesn't know, Finney herself is an establishment liberal) and said she would argue with them and tell them that this inaccurate. She made the point that it's not the case that people vote against their own interests; it's that they define "their interests" differently than the people accusing them of voting against their own interests think they should...

I think that pretty well says it...

[Econoline]

Bo one cared that the only good paying jobs in whole communities left overseas leaving large portions of the country in perpetual decline. And yes when the complained. They were belittled for not getting a proper education.

They were belittled by Republicans, they were belittled by business owners (big and small), they were belittled by the very people they voted for to "save" them from the economic forces that made them desperate for someone to blame. And then they were told to blame the blacks, the Latinos, anyone who still had it worse off than them.

[Crackpot]

And where were the "liberals" during all that? Sitting around with the bier thumbs up thier collective asses? Given a choice between silence and bullshit are you really surprised bullshit won?

[Sue U]

Bo one cared that the only good paying jobs in whole communities left overseas leaving large portions of the country in perpetual decline. And yes when the complained. They were belittled for not getting a proper education.

If by "[n]o one cared" you mean the capitalists and Wall Street raiders whose sole focus was quarterly profits, then you might be on to something. But that's not the "coastal elites." I grew up with one of the most epic economic collapses in the history of America -- as did most people in cities where the economy depended on heavy industry. Do you think Camden or Flint happened by accident? The "greed is good" ethos of the Reagan years -- which saw magical powers in the invisible hand of the market, workers be damned -- is precisely what enabled the wholesale transfer of entire industries to low-wage no-regulation overseas locations. Who ever "belittled" a laid-off line worker "for not getting a proper education" when the economic rug was pulled out from under him/her?????

[Crackpot]

Are you kidding me we have a poster right here who regularly blamed people for not getting a "proper" education. And do you know what side of the political spectrum they self identify?

[Sue U]

Well, anybody who accuses people of "voting against their own interests" (as I have seen numerous liberal pundits do; Katrina vanden Heuvel says it all the time ) is essentially saying that those people are too dumb or ignorant to know what's best for them...

It's enormously condescending...

I saw Karen Finney a while back, (when she had a gig on MSNBC; before she went to work as the press spokesperson for Hillary) really hit the nail on the head in a segment she did about this...

She talked about having many liberal friends who would talk this way(for anyone who doesn't know, Finney herself is an establishment liberal) and said she would argue with them and tell them that this inaccurate. She made the point that it's not the case that people vote against their own interests; it's that they define "their interests" differently than the people accusing them of voting against their own interests think they should...

I think that pretty well says it...

I agree with you, Jim. I "vote against my own interests" almost every time, if you're looking at it strictly from the perspective of what will get me more money faster. But obviously that's not the only way to define one's interests. However, I get really suspicious when anyone claims to base some insight on "having many liberal friends who would talk this way."

[Sue U]

Are you kidding me we have a poster right here who regularly blamed people for not getting a "proper" education. And do you know what side of the political spectrum they self identify?

And do you think this approach is representative of any broader segment of "liberals" than one indiviual? Would you blithely attribute that view to me (although IANAL), or Guin, or BigRR or Econoline? Likewise, just because one Trump supporter here is a total jackass, that doesn't mean I would view all Trump supporters as total jackasses. I am certain that many voted for him actually believing he was a better choice than Clinton, for whatever reasons they deemed important (and which I do not pretend to know).

[Lord Jim]

I get really suspicious when anyone claims to base some insight on "having many liberal friends who would talk this way."

Yeah, but this wasn't a conservative who said she has some liberal friends who talk this way...

This was a liberal saying it....

And if you know who Karen Finney is, then you know that in all likelihood she has a lot of liberal friends...

[Econoline]

She made the point that it's not the case that people vote against their own interests; it's that they define "their interests" differently than the people accusing them of voting against their own interests think they should...

That's an excellent point. But...I wonder just how these people do define "their interests" in such a way that they think their situation improved under George W. Bush, got worse under Obama, and will improve again under Trump?????

Or is it just the right-wing media weasels like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Steve Bannon who spread the lie that "those liberals think you're stupid," and "those liberals don't care about you, they only care about The Blacks and The Mooselimbs and destroying America by persecuting Christians with Sharia law."

Yes, yes, YES, *EXACTLY*!!! I am sick and tired of people getting their view of "what liberals think" exclusively from right-wing political pundits.

And FWIW I do think that anyone who voted for Trump who is not either (a) a member of the small group of (mostly VERY rich) people Trump has appointed to surround himself with, (b) a member of Trump's own immediate family, or (c) Donald Trump himself, did indeed vote against their own interests...whether they know it or not. And I'm neither "coastal" nor "elite".

[Crackpot]

It is an approach talks by some. What's worse is as I've stated earlier is there is no realistic response coming from the left. They have taken a "head in the sand" approach ceding the entire argument to the opposition