At the Washington Free Beacon Matthew Continetti in a pretty good post explains why the Obama coalition fell apart and why the Democratic Party is self-destructing after their election loss, now one year ago. Here’s the concluding paragraph:
“Obama and Clinton,” writes Stan Greenberg, “lived in a cosmopolitan and professional America that wasn’t very angry about the state of the country, even if many of the groups in the Clinton coalition were struggling and angry.” But Bernie Sanders, and later Donald Trump, was angry, and offered alternatives that, however flawed, at least seemed to acknowledge the crisis. So the Obama coalition fell apart. And as long as Democrats prefer the safety of the sanity bubble to the realities of America in 2017, that coalition is not likely to be put back together anytime soon.
I’m not sure there ever was an “Obama coalition”. I think that whatever it was supported Obama personally and without Obama it couldn’t be depended on.
What I think that Mr. Continetti misses is the sense of entitlement that the technocrats that have been running the Democratic Party feel. They don’t own the positions they hold. They were put there, ultimately by people with real life needs, and catering to their most reliable supporters alone while ignoring those real people with real life needs is a ticket to Nowheresville.
A trailer in Hope, Arkansas is the real world. A posh meeting at the Marriott Marquis isn’t. It’s a bubble but not a “sanity bubble”.
Obama was simply the cult of personality, a smooth talker who alternatively issued platitudes or empty words, and the beneficiary of white guilt who knew how to use it, rolled into one. Obama was about Obama, and his legacy. He was succeeded in candidacy by an untrusted and untrustworthy shrew, who delivered the platitudes like a plastic doll and mistook thin wonkishness for substance, and whose arrogance and entitlement was all too plain to see. Trump is a thin skinned boor, interested in policy only from the gut and core values, and not in detail. He is a poor administrator, but much more street smart and savvy than critics want to believe. The question remaining is will he surround himself with better, and better vetted, people and let them do what they are supposed to, or will he remain the untrusting iron fisted top dog. His presidency will turn on it.
A Clinton/Obama sanity bubble? Sanity? Seriously?
As a measure of just how poor an administrator he is, months ago he should have brought every appointee left over the previous administration into his office one by one and had them make arguments for why they should be left in their positions. Most should have been fired.
Related: he has appointed replacements far too slowly.
Most should have been fired.
I have found it odd that the guy who gained national celebrity with the catchphrase “You’re fired” hasn’t actually done enough firing. I kept waiting for him to start riffing on that during the campaign.
I like Drew’s description of Trump, in that it’s absent all the political bs, and instead plainly critiques the man — the good, bad and ugly.
It should be remembered, however, that Trump’s temperament, experiences, comfort zones were cultivated not in politics but in the world of business — primarily construction and RE development. And, although born in an upper class Queens environment, he hung out with blue collar workers in their construction site habitats for much of his life. Consequently, he seems to innately understand, appreciate and like the working class, preferring their presence oftentimes more than upper class “suits.” The same goes for his military schooling, in creating a bond with those who are much more disciplined than he is.
Hence, Trump’s personal and policy play lists seem to revolve around an admiration and respect for those categories of people – the military and working class men/women — who he mingled with in earlier years. Such a background may be why Trump frequently appears out-of-step as to how a highly sophisticated president is supposed to conduct himself. For instance, his cascade of caustic and/or blunt comments, high and demanding expectations of others, and spontaneous reactions based on personal instinct are unsettling to many. Nonetheless, he resists softening remarks or rebukes, differentiating or toning them down specifically because of someone’s gender, race, status, or class. Rather, Trump is an “equal opportunity” critic of everyone, casting him as someone lacking presidential decorum, protocol, and political correctness in the MSM’s 24/7 news cycle. Basically, his reign in the WH has been what one might expect in a CEO’s boardroom, not optimally what has been seen in the Oval Office.
All in all, Trump’s demeanor can be likened to a course piece of raw material among a broad spectrum of highly processed elites – something the conforming media, Wall Street, politicos, and bureaucrats want to rid themselves of, like an uncomfortable burr under their saddles.
Would agree the D’s have been over run with technophiles who forget not all things can be quantified and fail to adapt their models to reality. In preaching terms, they leave the congregation wondering what was said in order to reach the big donors in the front row and the amen section.
From his slogan “Yes woe can†to his skin color and background, Obama’s appeal was to middle America. He did not appeal to Confederates and racist brethren. Trump’s presidency is a backlash from the 25 percent who hated Obama’s clean, articulate guts.
One thing Obama’s always did was admit how hard the job actually is. He tried to make decisions based on something other than wishful thinking. True hope is hard come. God bless him, he and his easy smile are working with other presidents for relief efforts after the seasonal hurricanes. I still think Obama would be a good FEMA director. Nice job for a technocrat.
Yes we can. We shall overcome. Some day.
Bill Clinton is one of the few truly self-made men to ever make it to the presidency. He and Obama both tried to govern as centrists.
It didn’t work. The parties were bigger than the men. And Bill had a grievous weakness. Obama’s was somewhat hapless. I truly think his instincts are better than the lousy, lazy groundwork that was laid for the ACA. His military plans are the ones scattering the cockroach nest that is ISIS. Trump is along for the ride.
Jan, Trump loves four things: luxury, money, Ivanka and Trump.
And winning, don’t forget winning.
Most of the Democratic leadership are only technophiles in the same sense that cats are pyromaniacs. They have the unwarranted admiration for technology that only those who don’t know anything about it can have.
No, I mean technocrats. They believe that they deserve their roles by reason of merit. Their brains. The degrees from the prestigious universities. Credentials.
Genuine technocracy, “rule by experts”, would mean that you’d need actual expertise in the specific field in which you were working. Basically, the operative definition of technocracy today is “a law degree from Harvard or Yale Law”.
We had a functional technocracy in FDR’s Brain Trust. Of course that was back before we decided brilliance could be found anywhere and forgot that the “best and brightest” minds often aren’t top academic achievers.
To highlight the difference compare the backgrounds and experiences of FDR’s first two Secretaries of the Treasury with Obama’s.
@jan
I think you got it mostly right. Nonetheless, haters gotta hate.
You have Trump’s fixation on the military all wrong. The guy got 5 deferments to stay out of the military. The guy was a coward. He surrounds himself with military to make up for that.
On a personal note, as ex-military myself, I would suggest that you delete the part about Trump mingling with military when he was younger. He did no such thing. The part about mingling with the working class is also BS, or maybe they weren’t so selective as I thight at Studio 51.
Steve