The key point of Amy Walter’s recent piece at The Cook Political Report is quotidian enough. Americans are less angry than they are frustrated:
Americans are angry, say the cable TV pundits and armchair political observers. They are angry at a dysfunctional Washington, D.C. Angry at the out-of-touch political class. Angry at an out-of-control bureaucracy. The only problem with this argument is that, well, Americans aren’t actually any angrier at government today than they were a year ago, or even four years ago. In fact, according to data from the Pew Research Center, the percent of Americans who say they are “angry at the federal government” has remained rather consistent over the last six years, ranging from a high of 32 percent in October 2013, to a low of 13 percent in March 2011. Today, 22 percent of Americans say they are “angry.” Even when asked their feelings about the broader category of “politics” just 21 percent say they are angry.
So, why the obsession with anger? Well, like just about everything else we talk about this year, it has an association with Donald J. Trump. Among Trump supporters, Pew found in March, 50 percent said they were angry with the federal government. Forty percent said they were angry with politics. Meanwhile, just 30 percent of Cruz and 18 percent of Kasich backers described themselves as angry with government. Even those who support Sanders, who is often described as the angry candidate on the left, are not any angrier about “politics today” than Clinton supporters are – 18 percent to 14 percent.
Americans are – and quite frankly have been for a while – frustrated. According to the same Pew data, 57 percent of Americans consider themselves “frustrated” with the federal government. But, this 57 percent isn’t that out of the ordinary either. In fact, since 1997, a majority of Americans – between 51 percent and 62 percent – have described themselves as frustrated.
There are, however, some pearls of wisdom that I think are worth passing along. For example:
A recent study for the National Urban League found that African-Americans are doing “much better than they did when its first ‘State of Black America’ report came out 40 years ago.” While overall, African-Americans are still doing less well on issues like poverty and high school graduation rates than whites, they are doing better on these measures than they were back in 1976.
As someone who was alive back in those olden days, I don’t see how anyone with eyes can deny that black folks are better off than they were forty years ago. Fewer young black men are being murdered today than then. Far fewer are being shot by police. Why the palpable anger, well beyond frustration, of the BlackLivesMatter folks? I think it’s because it works.
Or this:
Where Americans do find common ground, however, is that few think life for the next generation will be better. Just a quarter of all voters, 18 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats think life for the next generation will be better. It is whites, however, who are the most pessimistic, with 54 percent saying they see things getting worse for the next generation – 10 points higher than African Americans and 17 points higher than Hispanics. This is an electorate that is not satisfied with the status quo AND worried that it won’t get better anytime soon.
You’d think that level of dissatisfaction would lead more people to the conclusion that we’ve got to start doing things differently than we have for the last several decades. I guess the level of frustration hasn’t risen high enough yet.
I think this country is simply too polarized to reach a consensus to do anything differently. In fact the remedies posited by the left are so starkly different from the remedies supported by the right, as to be called problems rather than solutions by opposing sides.
Furthermore, even the problems facing this country are interpreted and processed via a politicized spectrum, rather than a more unified one. For instance:
The left promotes the idea of rampant racism. The right feels that affirmative action policies have been in place too long creating reverse racism. The left supports “blacks lives matter” speech and practices. The right abhors it and them, pointing to increases in crime throughout the country as but one negative side effect.
The left spurns opinions opposing their own, calling for echo chambers of same-mindedness, aka “safe spaces,” while in their intellectual bubbles known as colleges. The right, though, copiously and conspicuously point to Constitutional Rights permitting diversity of speech, even should it inartfully clash with another’s ideology.
The left supports more government, more rules and regulations, higher taxes for the “rich,” higher capital gains, death taxes, all in the attempts to promote collectivism versus individualism. All these policies, though, are softly cloaked in terms of”fairness,” with the innuendo being anything less is “unfair.” The right, at least rhetorically, pushes for smaller government, cutting rules and regulations they feel only stymies business and economic growth. They want to lower taxes, including moderating capital gains and death taxes. Their platform rests on increasing individual opportunities, rather than leveling all playing fields in order to have collective parity.
It goes on and on regarding which path to take when it comes to reform and refurbishment remedies proposed for bettering this country. Basically, you can’t go anywhere when the brakes are always applied. And, in this day and age, the brakes are definitely on and holding, giving no one a break.
Just for you jan-
The right denies that racism exists. The left thinks it still remains in many places. The right opposes any attempts at remedies. The left thinks police shouldn’t kill unarmed black people, especially if they aren’t actually committing a crime. The right thinks the cops aren’t killing enough black people.
The right spurns opinions other than their own, living in a talk radio and cable TV bubble. The right claims that they are the only ones capable of interpreting the Constitution. The left copiously and conspicuously point to attempts to keep minorities from voting and participating in our system, sometimes by just locking up as many minorities and poor people as they can.
The right just wants to cut taxes while increasing spending. (Ok, this part is not actually hyperbole, this sis actually true, or at least it is what they really do.) The left wants to balance taxes and spending, while bettering the safety net.
There. I think i may have achieved just as one sided a presentation as you did. In reality, I think both sides are pretty attached to their shibboleths and aren’t going to change anytime soon. I think both of the POTUS candidates are so flawed that neither party will see the need to change if they lose. The voters may be frustrated but they are also so easily misled I don’t see them pushing for anything positive.
Steve
Back at you, Steve —
There’s a difference between dogmatic hyperbole and simply citing credible differences and hypocrisies one sees in the two major political parties. For instance, it’s illustrative of the progressive left to utilize identity politics to separate out groups as guaranteed voting blocks. They are commonly categorized by race, gender and classes, highlighting campaign rhetoric in ways that will assuage these particular group’s issues — whether they are real or not. Consequently you have democrats not only supporting “black lives matter” actions, but actually pandering to them; the continual “war on women” assertions against the right; “tax the rich” sloganeering which usually includes far more people than simply “the 1 %” bracket; and the incessant call for others to “pay their fair share,” while almost 50% of the citizens pay no federal income tax at all. Finally, there’s the ultimate hypocrisy, regarding the earlier democrat party’s backing of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, as the current democrat front runner has gotten mega bucks giving speeches to Wall Street — speeches she refuses to release.
And, while the right certainly has captured talk radio and many internet blogs, the progressive left has the lion’s share of the MSM and it’s journalists nailed down. Just look at the recent Rhodes/Iran deal fiasco, as to how the press rolled over, lapping up talking points without doing any investigative due diligence on their own about the sheer efficacy of this agreement (which many still consider to be a treaty). Then you have academia, most of whom leans left, and the Hollywood celebrity echo chamber who are in lockstep with leftist candidates and their policies.
Furthermore, the type of Constitution most of these left-leaning political acolytes endorse is from the prospective of a “living, breathing one,” subject to change by judicial activism responding to current times and agendas. The right, however, whether one agrees or not, adheres to the original intention and language of the Constitution, with the interpretation of words being precisely as those in Webster’s, giving little leeway to any interpretative machinations that might be politically correct or needing some judicial facilitation to be considered “Constitutional.” .
You’re correct, however, saying republicans want to cut spending, as they ironically spend more. Bush ran up 5 trillion in debt. But, he was also mightily excoriated by his own base for that. Under Obama, though, 9 trillion more debt has been accrued. Did his base criticize him for this? Actually, Paul Krugman only decried that the stimulus wasn’t bigger! As for Sander’s utopian agenda, it has been calculated to saddle another 19 trillion of debt onto the country.
How on earth can you expect to “balance taxes and spending, while bettering the safety net” this way?
jan- Sigh.
” it’s illustrative of the progressive left to utilize identity politics to separate out groups as guaranteed voting blocks.”
Evangelical Christians mean anything to you? You realize that as a group they just about equal blacks plus Hispanics?
“Consequently you have democrats not only supporting “black lives matter†actions, but actually pandering to them”
Are you seriously trying to make the case that the GOP does not pander to its voters? Really?
“the continual “war on women†assertions against the right”
I think the left overdoes this, but it has a lot more merit that the “war on Christians”.
“while almost 50% of the citizens pay no federal income tax at all.”
Proving that once again, conservative just don’t realize there are taxes other than the income tax.
“Finally, there’s the ultimate hypocrisy, regarding the earlier democrat party’s backing of the “Occupy Wall Street†movement, as the current democrat front runner has gotten mega bucks giving speeches to Wall Street ”
And your last nominee actually came from Wall Street. This one is billionaire who made his money leveraging real estate deals. So. while I would agree Wall Street has way too much influence, I will continue to say Wall Street leases the Democrats but it owns the GOP.
” Just look at the recent Rhodes/Iran deal fiasco”
I did. You fail to realize, won’t find it on Drudge, that the author of that article is a very pro-Israel neocon. It was a hit piece. Keep up.
“The right, however, whether one agrees or not, adheres to the original intention and language of the Constitution, with the interpretation of words being precisely as those in Webster’s”
No, I don’t agree. This is very difficult for conservatives to accept, but you guys don’t really get to be the sole arbiters of how the Constitution is interpreted. The people who wrote the Constitution argued about what it meant. We will always argue over its meaning. You guys don’t get to decide.
” Bush ran up 5 trillion in debt. But, he was also mightily excoriated by his own base for that. Under Obama, though, 9 trillion more debt has been accrued.”
Those on the left generally believe in countercyclical spending and taxing by government. The right believes in just cutting taxes. Your current candidate wants a huge tax cut and has already said he won’t touch Medicare, SS, Medicaid and he will increase defense spending. This is what all conservative Presidents have done since (including) Reagan.
Steve
I ran across this link in the comments at Col. Lang’s website:
Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment
Steve — where do I start with your post?
1) Religious groups are belief-based, not grouped according to dismembering society by color coding people, like the dems choose to do.
2) Both parties “pander” to their bases. However, the notation regarding “Black Lives Matter” is the kind of pandering done on misinformation and through subtleties approving of violence and property destruction. If the NRA, for instance, ran thru the streets shooting their firearms indiscriminately, and the R’s shrugged or cheered, that would be equivalent to what the dems have demonstrated in their kind of “pandering” to this lawless group formed after the Ferguson riots.
3) There is so much statistical evidence of hypocrisy regarding democrats and their gender pay grades being unaligned (both Clinton and Obama), as they vociferously criticize political opponents for blanket discrepancies, containing more fallacies than facts. As for Christian bias, if you don’t see the erosion and micro steps, involved in discrediting Christian doctrine and/or traditions, a line or two of rebuttal would be futile.
4) ” conservative just don’t realize there are taxes other than the income tax.” That’s why I specifically said “federal” income tax, in order to circumvent this common retort from dems.
5) Romney was certainly tarred and feathered with Wall Street associations. However, I think his profit was made through Bain and other business endeavors, rather than giving speeches and hugs for profit from Wall Street. As for Trump, he is pure business, embracing it one minute and then sneering at it the next. Also, when you look at presidential donations, such as ones going to Obama, he received the lion’s share. What was that all about — a lease option rather than an ownership maneuver?
6) I don’t care if the author of an article, detailing a type of malfeasance between the press and WH, belongs to the Mickey Mouse Club! This kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water ploy, just because the water isn’t the right temperature, is simply a curve ball to deflect criticism your party might deserve.
7) When it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution, nobody, other than the sometimes blunt language of the Constitution should decide, unless there are constitutional changes legally made. For instance, some of the rulings on the PPACA were simply tortured in their attempts to make the PPACA continue to constitutionally exist — despite language that explicitly said otherwise.
8) Taxation is a topic that the right and left are totally at odds with. Like Dave said, somewhere, when the economy is growing, higher taxes aren’t as much of an issue. But, when the economy is slipping or at a standstill (like it currently is today), then increasing taxes only increases societal burdens.
and as share of total federal revenue: