ignoring the politics of the policy of the politics
Matthew Yglesias points out what has always stung as strangely controversial and I can never browbeat… ignoring some inconvenient truths as we sunder from one election cycle to the next.
Trump ran with a set of issues contrary to the conventional Republican orthodoxy —
not going to touch social security and medicare, going to bring troops home from the Middle East and pursue a relatively isolationist “America First” foreign policy, going to dismantle foriegn trade agreements.
Even his immigration hawkishness — it’s worth pointing out that the 2006 Democratic midterms were buttressed by victories by rather Trumpish figures like Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth — tying immigration in as a big business (Republican) plan that ties in with trade policy in bringing down wages and losing jobs… (Hey… Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.)
Right off on the fringes of the geographical cluster of states that swung to Trump.
Polls indicate that today’s Democrats are more pro free trade than ever… Well, parsing election results, it doesn’t look like the Democrats are likely to win Ohio, as they now try to wrangle in ward to Michigan Pennsylvania Wisconsin… Minnesota. (Psst… What are they going to do about guns?)
On the big swarth of the LGBTQ (IA+…) …. I’ve always had this urge to shout at, say, a Huffingtonpost column post-election headlined “The Worst President Ever” on this front — “YOU’RE INSANE!” ( Reagan was, wasn’t he?)
The comments section of the Washington Monthly post pointing to the Yglesias article has a number of people who won’t have it. Obama did the auto bailout, didn’t he? Sure. Also he won this geographic cluster of states against a free trader. As opposed to Trump who won them against a free trader who…
… never opposed any foreign intervention from the Clinton Administration through the Obama Administration, did she? (The WAMO blog comments assign this to Russia feeding this line to everyone.)