There is much truth here. The Democrats over the past 50 years did abandon labor, and the poor and these were their traditional constituencies. Likewise, there have been Democrats who have behaved like Republicans. Especially Clinton. I agree with you 100% there. He traded labor unions for soccer moms. You also point to Carter, which is interesting. I just do not know enough about his record. You are largely correct though, the result of all that you detail is that in 2016 enough of these disenfranchised formerly Democratic groups did find their way to Trump to make a difference.
The question is why? You suggest it is simply that they sold “out their party’s blue-collar and progressive values for campaign contributions from the rich donor class. The party switched its operative constituencies from labor and the poor to the American aristocracy, that is, to the richest ten percent that includes the managers of the transnational corporations and the professional class of coastal elites.”
Certainly there is some truth here, but I feel you ignore two other trends, which I think should be considered. The first is the change in the media landscape, and you do point to some of that. You point to the abandonment of the “Fairness” doctrine, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which you rightly point out leads to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. On top of talk radio and cable news networks, however, we also have the internet and social media. Together, these new media plus the disaffected populations described above are a volatile combination. It would not be the first time that common sense was applied to government failures through a largely new medium/ media.
The second point I want to make latches exactly on to what I end with above: Reason versus common sense. And this is primarily where we disagree. Your offering regarding Burke is problematic:
“There’s never been any such thing as a viable conservative alternative philosophy to liberal humanism. Modern conservative casuistry began with Edmund Burke’s moderate but still elitist compromises with Enlightenment liberalism, which is to say that conservativism has been in a box since the birth of modernity, that is, since the end of monarchy, feudalism, and Christian theocracy in the West.”
(I realize now that I had written a response to one of your earlier essays, and I will have to read your essay on Burke, which you provide a link to!)
In short, I would beg to differ regarding Burke and an alternative to liberal humanism. What makes Burke interesting to me is that he points exactly to the tension between common sense and reason. And this goes to the anti-intellectualism of the Trumpian mob and the desire to drain the swamp. The Swamp is not lobbyists for Trump and his supporters, but rather bureaucrats and scientists who appeal not to common sense but science and logic. Democrats chose reason over the common sense of their former constituents.
Yes, the Democrats sold out labor and the blue-collar folks, but it was not purely due to campaign contributions. It was the rational thing to do. Add to this dynamic the media, the streaming, the social networks, the iPhones and even the Newmaxs, and you have the world that we live in.
In short, I am offering that we have not only economic issues but epistemic issues compounded by a multiplicity of views offered by a diversity of media outlets today.
