I consider The Atlantic a truly indespensible source of information and commentary. The publication is a welcome island of thoughtful and penetrating articles in our ocean of superficial punditry and outright propaganda. I subscribe to the old-fashioned print magazine, and the last issue included an introductory essay by George Packer that I found particularly insightful. (Okay, honesty compels me to admit that I found his essay so “on target” because he essentially agreed with my own analysis. I’m not immune to confirmation bias…)
The essay is titled “The End of Democratic Delusions.” I think the following paragraph tells us how America has come to this unfortunate place.
This new era is neither progressive nor conservative. The organizing principle in Trump’s chaotic campaigns, the animating passion among his supporters, has been a reactionary turn against dizzying change, specifically the economic and cultural transformations of the past half century: the globalization of trade and migration, the transition from an industrial to an information economy, the growing inequality between metropolis and hinterland, the end of the traditional family, the rise of previously disenfranchised groups, the “browning” of the American people. Trump’s basic appeal is a vow to take power away from the elites and invaders who have imposed these changes and return the country to its rightful owners—the real Americans. His victory demonstrated the appeal’s breadth in blue and red states alike, among all ages, ethnicities, and races.
If we look back at history, at other periods of rapid, dizzying change, we see similar reactions and upheavals. The Industrial Revolution sparked labor uprisings, anarchist movements, and clashes between traditional monarchies and then-emerging democratic and socialist movements. The Protestant Reformation fractured the Catholic Church’s authority, reshaped Europe’s religious and political map, sparked religious wars (think the Thirty Years’ War), and devastated large parts of Europe. There are plenty of other examples.
As Packer notes, reaction is insular and aggrieved, and it “paints in dark tones.” It’s characterized by an intent to undo what most of us see as progress and “reverse history, restoring the nation to some imagined golden age when the people ruled.”
When Democrats lose a presidential election, they descend into a familiar quarrel over whether the party moved too far to the left or to the center. This time the question seems especially irrelevant; their political problem runs so much deeper. The Democratic Party finds itself on the wrong side of a historic swing toward right-wing populism, and tactical repositioning won’t help. The mood in America, as in electorates all over the world, is profoundly anti-establishment. Trump had a mass movement behind him; Kamala Harris was installed by party elites. He offered disruption, chaos, and contempt; she offered a tax break for small businesses. He spoke for the alienated; she spoke for the status quo.
As Packer also notes, we are at a time when the parties have once again switched identities. The GOP of Lincoln was anti-slavery and the Democratic party of the time (and for many years after) was the party of White supremacy; in the 20th Century, they essentially traded places. More recently, another major switch made Democrats rather than Republicans the party of institutionalism. As Packer points out, that realignment has been going on since the early ’70s:
Democrats now claim the former Republican base of college-educated professionals, and Republicans have replaced Democrats as the party of the working class. As long as globalization, technology, and immigration were widely seen as not only inevitable but positive forces, the Democratic Party appeared to ride the wave of history, while Republicans depended on a shrinking pool of older white voters in dying towns. But something profound changed around 2008.
Packard points to three of those profound changes: a growing “conviction that the political and economic game was rigged for the benefit of distant elites; a sense that the middle class had disappeared; and the absence of any institutions that might have provided help, including the Democratic Party.”
Packer is hardly the only political scientist who has reminded Americans that the reactionary period we are experiencing is global. He spends much of his essay focusing on the challenges posed by what he calls “The Trump Reaction,” which he also says is more fragile than many believe, thanks to the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with ideologues, opportunists, and crackpots who will inevitably turn on each other–and the even more obvious fact that Trump has absolutely no interest in governing.
Prior eras of rapid change have also sparked chaos and irrational reaction. History tells us that “this too shall pass.”
We really need to figure out how to speed that passage.
“Trump has absolutely no interest in governing.” Correct. One had to be living on Mars to miss this obvious point. He ran to avoid going to jail, and the gutless DOJ let him get away with it.
Packer is a great writer, but I think he gives way too much credit to the people who voted against their own best interests to give the world the worst collection of fools and corrupt monsters this country has ever produced. The fact that the voters – those who voted for Republicans and those who stayed home thus giving the election to Republicans – did this with ALL the media information and presentations tells me, at least, that they are not global at all, but very self-centered, self-absorbed and only see/listen to what they want to hear and see.
I just don’t think we can over-intellectualize the situation. One might recall, however, that the election and re-election of Richard Nixon in ’68 and ’72 showed the world how poor we were at electing statesmen and responsible representatives. In 2008, we were in the midst of an economic collapse brought about by those Republican elites who want to deregulate everything.
It’s about power and money. None of our politicians in either camp are intellectual giants. They just want the power from being elected. And in our corrupt SCOTUS decisions, we have an environment where corruption pays – bigly.
All of this misses the point that in a poll before the election a large majority chose the Democratic party’s ideas and actions over the Republicans. This poll is significant because the policies listed were not identified by party. Trump is already abandoning his platform. The idea that the elite are cheating us all was a major basis of the Democratic platform. The fact is, Trump and right wing news made people afraid, and fear Trumps rational thought for a great many people. The question is, how do we stop right wing media from lying about the what is happening in light of free speech.
Vern, there are a few members of the House and Senate who are smart (Raskin, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren at least) but those few are overwhelmed by the many low IQ members. Also we need to remember that intelligence doesn’t always equate with effectiveness.
The current crop of Democrats in the Senate needs new blood and new rules. No one person should be allowed to control normal processes, as the “genius” Tommy Tuberville did when he held up the military promotions. If they insist on hanging onto the filibuster, they need to require the members to stand and do it the old fashioned way. If it requires real work, fewer people will do it.
The American people don’t seem to care very much about their government. As much as those of us who do, would love to think that everybody thinks about our “leadership(?)” like we do. That is how we end up with the joke we have now. They bought the show, taken in once again by a snake oil salesman. Look for a rationale? Too much change or just plain racism? I pick the latter.
Unfortunately the quoted article appears to be spot on, but I have to believe that the predominant factor in the election results here at home (as well as in other countries) to be the disinformation and misinformation that filled the media airwaves for the duration of the campaign, thus allowing unscrupulous characters to take advantage and come to power. I still have the feeling that it may not last much beyond two years this time, until the midterms, when the rascals who cannot figure out what governing means are voted out of the picture. It is a familiar and fairly predictable outcome and could help stem the anti-progressive wave we are currently experiencing.
I see Packer’s analysis of Trump as sound enough, but my concern is that Trump is a useful tool for other much more capable and committed oligarchs and autocrats who may well use him and his clownish chaos (that may not last long, given his age and health) to install themselves more securely and plainly in power. I think that’s the challenge we are most critically facing. Trump is just the sideshow.
I agree with both Vernon and Annie: Don’t over-intellectualize or try to slice and dice why the Democrats lost this election.
Yes, power-mongering played a part. But, in large measure, the media in all sectors let down the American people by failing each and every day to call out Trump for what he stood for and what he represented as a candidate. That lack of accountability, coupled with fear, racism and misogyny in the electorate, cost Harris this election.
I am in agreement, as most often, with Sheila, on Packer’s assessment summarizing political shifts since 2008. I also have confidence in The Atlantic Monthly and their credible writers who have held in trust evidence based journalism. Thank you, Sheila. Very helpful insight.
Talk about “delusions,” #GenocideJoe told us yesterday that he made a mistake by dropping out of the race. I thought dementia patients swapped a deluded mind for a failing mind and body. Joe’s ego is still intact.
The problem with the last election is that Kamala was just an extension of Joe. If you haven’t realized that polls are worthless by now, you’re still living in the days of rotary telephones. Also, the parties couldn’t care less about what the people want, which is evident when a majority wants universal healthcare, and neither party can break with its healthcare donors. We are an oligarchy that controls the media and both political parties.
Trumpism gives the impression of populism, but it is not! He gives the impression that all the Trumpian sycophants are anti-GOP, but look at who runs the GOP. It’s all Trump’s family members and more sycophants.
Vern was spot on, but he missed one historical point – both parties deregulated their donor class and embraced Neoliberalism and privatization of government. Look who benefitted from this privatization – Musk, Thiel, and Silicon Valley. Private prisons. Detention camps. And all the now monopoly-controlled industries. Poor Lina just scratched a small surface of the problem created by 40 years of Neoliberalism.
Marianne Williamson wrote a letter to the DNC to establish herself as a chairpersonship candidate. I read the letter yesterday, and it was okay, but she didn’t emphasize the economic issues plaguing the US. As Sheila points out, we transitioned from a high-paying industrial powerhouse to a low-paying service economy, yet we made NO changes to our capitalist economy. The oligarchy reaped all the benefits while workers got screwed, and both parties worked to limit the power of unions.
With that understanding, the 2016 election was labeled the year of populism. The GOP ran Trump while the DNC ran Hillary Clinton (after she screwed over Bernie Sanders). The people realize the two parties are screwing them over and want outsiders to tear down the oligarchy (they don’t know it’s an oligarchy, but they know it doesn’t work for them). In 2024, the GOP ran the outsider Trump again, while the DNC ran the insiders Harris/Biden. Who’s missing the target here?
I’ve written enough, but when talking about the major global issue and why the far-right is so popular right now, look at the color and nationalities of the people migrating into the US and Europe. 😉
Packer was on Washington Week on Friday and spoke much of this. As Eduardo Porter wrote (and I posted once before:
“”To steer voters away from a “blow it all up” approach will require figuring out how to invite them into a country that feels alien to so many — a society that is continually changing to embrace new peoples, cultures and technologies, products, environmental constraints, languages, religions, forms of expression, gender identities, sexual affinities, and so on. Voters’ disgust might appear as though it is aimed at venal leaders out of touch with the salt of the earth. But it amounts to a rejection of what America is becoming.”
Connie is “spot on” about The Duck is not the problem. He is a symbolic head – it is the Right Ecosystem of academics, think tankers, etc. who are prepared and have specific actionable plans for Project 2025, 26, etc…
Got own edification, I searched for a summary platform advocated by fundamentalist adherents identified with Project 2025. Has anyone found a better definition supported by citations?
Project 2025, spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, is structured around four foundational pillars designed to reshape the U.S. government with conservative principles. Here are the pillars:
1. **Comprehensive Policy Recommendations**: This pillar involves creating detailed policy recommendations to guide a future conservative administration in managing federal agencies. It covers areas like traditional family values, national security, economic growth, and individual freedoms.
2. **Personnel Preparation**: Project 2025 includes a unique recruitment platform, often referred to as a “Conservative LinkedIn,” to identify, train, and mobilize a new generation of conservative leaders.
3. **Training Academy**: To bridge the knowledge gap, Project 2025 includes a training academy to prepare future leaders for their roles in the government.
4. **Implementation Playbook**: This pillar provides a strategic plan for implementing conservative policies effectively from day one of the new administration.
(Citation links removed for brevity of post).
E.J. Dionne in today’s Washington Post:
“People have felt for some time that the moral fabric of community has been unraveling, from family to community to the nation, People hunger for a sense of belonging, a sense of pride, a sense of solidarity — and people feel unmoored.”
The right and Trump himself have intuited and responded to these yearnings more effectively than the left, even if the policies they’re likely to pursue would only aggravate social breakdown. It might seem paradoxical, but protecting individual liberty requires nurturing a strong sense of community. A society that remains indifferent to the solidarity and pride deficits will not thrive as a democracy.”
Lester, that was the basic premise of Marianne Williamson’s letter to the DNC. Her first recommendation was to go on a “listening tour” around the country to hear what people think and feel.
What’s also interesting is the “liberal media” has already labeled her run as a “long-shot bid.” Why would the liberal oligarchy want to dismiss her run to make significant changes to the DP? LOL
The party of the status quo is intentionally sinking into extinction because the right-wing autocracy works for them all just fine.
I have to say that there are a lot of good points made so far, but I want to second Annie’s point, in particular: Fear is a huge motivating tool, and between the misinformation, and Trump’s BS, it worked against rational thought. Fear has been the favorite tool of all wanna-be dictators, and when it is connected to religion it does trump everything else.
The Brazilians had a bit of “Bolsonaro was sent by God,” and the evangelicals have the same idiocy about Trump. Rationality does not hold much sway among what may once have been thought of as “The salt of the Earth!”
One group going to work for us – check them out! https://www.democracy2025.org
In my Hoosier social circle, well, to be more precise, my former social circle, the singular event in 2008 that set us on a course for the current mess was the election of a Black man to the Presidency of the United States. It shattered the white supremacy fever dreams of many of my family/acquaintances, and led me to end many relationships over their blatant racism. More accurately, over their hate. Talk about shattered, that would be my views of many folks who I loved; I had never known the hate they hold in their hearts. And they have only gotten worse, which I could scarcely have believed possible in the past. The far right, partnered with the oligarchs in this country, have worked assiduously to harness this hate and leverage it to gain power. And here we are.
A family member whose job involves interacting with people over 62 made an interesting observation recently regarding the sense of community when that cohort lives in close proximity but individual space. As each new wave of 62 and older comes into the community, that sense of community diminishes. The newer, younger members stay in individual space much more than in the past, connected to only those who they already know, phones and social media replacing face-to-face interactions when looking for contacts to address immediate needs or just to talk with someone else for a change. Most of these younger residents are single by choice or circumstance. What once was an active and extroverted population has become more and more introverted and isolated. Whether it is out of fear of the changes or the flood of local news than centers on shootings and other violent crime or failing health, both mental and physical, it means less community and more isolation. Distrust of institutions, the complexity of interacting with public services and the medical community where online, impersonal access is often the only option, the demands of automation (self-check and digital coupons), the increasingly frequent incidents where cash or checks are no longer accepted all may contribute to the fear and isolation. Longing for the old ways makes sense when the ability to deal with new requirements coming at an alarming speed with sometimes serious consequences teaches them that the best way to handle things is to pull back and isolate.
Maybe the most impactful thing that causes isolation is elder scams and the continued warnings that anything new must be examined and distrusted or financial ruin might cause institutionalization.
In combination with the cultural changes in family structure, the self-sorting by race and class, the decline in religious participation, fear of change and anger when the loss of confidence in established community structures, the changes on an individual basis can frustrate attempts to communicate and cause withdrawal from community.
For all of the promised advantages of media allowing wider community much faster, it seems that, in reality, the opposite is what has happened.
I don’t have any idea what the future will bring, but I do know that much of what is required of those who want to fully participate is lost on me. Hope is fading as the cruel and vicious control the interchanges.
It is interesting that the Republicans, according to Packer, are the party of the working class, yet their policies, such as they are (they can hardly be called policies) are mostly disastrous for the working class.
Honestly, I feel that “automation” is part of what has made society overly stupid and caused breakdowns in communication. People now adays don’t even want to deal with other people so now we have those self-checkouts, and automated phone calls, etc. The sort of stuff that is supposed to “Speed things up and make things better/efficient” is doing the opposite. For example, in Indianapolis some genius has turned 96th street and Allisonville into a small roundabout when it used to be a 4 way traffic stop that worked just fine. So now its like the Wild West with cars when it comes to the roundabout because there are so many cars trying to shove themselves through a small intersection that someone is bound to get hurt. And half the people who use the roundabout don’t even pay attention to the signage of the roundabout as to which lane they are supposed to be in. And of course you will hear from people that construct this stuff “It helps conserve gas”. Look I don’t care whether it helps me conserve gas, I care about whether people can enter and exit the roundabout without having an accident! So really… stuff is getting stupid. It’s like calling a suicide hotline and being put on hold. This is the stuff that makes me wonder where everyone’s brains are.
Rapid change (and change has been speeding up for over a century) causes many people to scream “Stop the world; I want to get off”, but we can’t stop change. The appeal to “tear it down” is old and as Sheila recently pointed out, quoting Mencken, simple answers are appealing, even when they are false.
Annie is correct, but this is old. Since FDR, the public mostly favored “liberal” policies but since the ’80s decided that the GOP was the party that made you wealthy and that Democrats blew up the deficit and made everything bad.
Way superior PR from the GOP.
Part of the problem (besides fragmented media) that Democrats, and others, are missing is that we are in a Reality Television era. Voters want a bold, gusty, dynamic, and (sorry) macho leader — with the policies of thoughtful wonks, who are usually demeaned as “elites”, “eggheads”, and “socialists”. Trump is a product of TV packaging, as was Reagan before him. People react on three “anatomical” levels: (1) the brain, (2) the gut, and (3) the gonads. The reaction gets stronger as you go down the list. Democrats still aim at the brain while Republicans go for the gut. Corporations use sex appeal, but that may not work in politics quite as well (on the other hand, JFK was considered good looking).
On a positive ending, great stress brought on a turn to the right and an embrace of autocracy, but during the time of Lindbergh and Father Coughlin, we also had FDR and Francis Perkins. Now we just have to survive the next few years and look for the next generation of leaders.
Excellent, as usual, Sheila. If your readers want more, check out last week’s Washington Week with The Atlantic for a one on one between Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeff Greenfield, and George Packer, one of his outstanding writers (to which your contribution attests.) Dynamite!! Lester Levine saw the program as well, as he noted, making the point that quite a few of your readers are on the same wave length.