Divided we stand
Published January 21, 2016
by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, January 21, 2016.
It’s not just that our nation is divided. Both parties are divided. The Democrats’ division is generational. The Republicans’ division is personal.
One party’s insurgency comes from the left; the other, from the right. One is young vs. old; the other, inside vs. outside. Both come from a deep well of fear and loathing about the state of our Union.
Draw a line through Democrats at age 45. Voters over the line are 2 to 1 for Clinton. Voters under it are 2 to 1 for Sanders.
The over-45 crowd was born before 1970. They came of age when Bill Clinton ended the Reagan-Bush years. Clinton was young, hip and part of their generational experience: Vietnam, Watergate, 60s-70s rock and a Saturday Night Live attitude. They enjoyed the Clinton economic boom.
The under-45s see the Clintons as the old days. These voters came of age in the world of 9/11 and the 2008 economic collapse. They borrowed big for college and entered the worst job market since the 1930s.
They see the Clintons as pillars of a political class that understands their lives about as well as Hillary and Bill understand Snapchat, Instagram and texting. They don’t see in Hillary the authenticity they value.
Sanders has gathered their collective energy just as John Kennedy, George McGovern (unfortunately) and Gary Hart and Howard Dean (both briefly) captured younger generations before. Sanders has done it with a full-throated assault on a political and economic system that under-45 Democrats see as stacked against them and clueless about them.
The Republican division isn’t by age. It grows out of the fear and anger of voters who see the world threatened by fanatical terrorists abroad and a rigged insider system at home. Their villains are Washington politicians, especially Washington Republican politicians.
The Democrats’ fight seems to be 80-20 ideological to personal. The Republicans’ fight seems 90-10 personal to ideological. Which may explain Trump and Cruz, who specialize in personal attacks.
Some pundits say that, extremists aside, there’s a broad middle ground among Americans. If so, what unites them is that they’re mad as hell at somebody.
January 21, 2016 at 11:37 am
Norm Kelly says:
'They see the Clintons as pillars of a political class that understands their lives about as well as Hillary and Bill understand Snapchat, Instagram and texting.'
Wouldn't it be nice if ANY group of liberal voters would see Billary as LIARS!? How about 'They see the Clintons as pillars of a political class that understands their lives about as well as they understand THE TRUTH'!
Except this editorial/post was written by a liberal, so we can't expect too much honesty. Telling the truth about Billary could get someone excommunicated from the cabal.
And when it comes to someone defining me for me, it better not be a liberal die-hard. I'm not angry because of ANYTHING personal. It's not that I dislike the current occupier on a personal basis; I've never met the guy so don't know him enough to dislike him on a personal basis. And, no, I would not take the opportunity to meet him if given the chance. Not much in life would be more of a waste of time than meeting the current occupier.
Us 'angry white males' aren't angry because of WHO the occupier is, we don't care one whit about the COLOR of the occupier's skin. Only mentally challenged people look at skin color to make any sort of determination about a person. Does this describe any particular group for you? It should! It's libs that look at skin color to evaluate people. Let's remember, it's libs who claim that blacks can't produce a valid voter ID card because of their skin color. Since every state will pay for the picture id (at a cost of $2 per year!), it's obviously NOT a poll tax, as some libs claim! It IS that most libs think blacks inferior. Seeing skin color that's darker than theirs causes average libs to automatically discount the ability of the darker skinned person. Dark skins can't get picture id, can't get a good job, can't get a good education, can't pass a regular school test unless it's socially adjusted to accommodate a dark skinned person, and the list goes on. So, who is it that has a problem with dark skinned people? It's certainly NOT conservatives or, generally, angry white males.
Us angry white males dislike the socialist policies of the current occupier. Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom, not socialism. Our nation was founded on the notion of religious freedom, not forced compliance with worship of government. Our nation was founded on individualism not collectivism. Remember when early pilgrims experimented with socialism? It failed miserably! Not because of WHO the people were that tried socialism, but because it has it's own demise built in. Socialism can NOT succeed. Regardless of how many kindly, loving, racist libs occupy ANY elected office. Our nation was founded on the principle of limited central government - it's in the U S Constitution - that document that most libs and all lib pols choose to ignore! When the current occupier CHOOSES to violate the U S Constitution, libs celebrate. How will those same libs respond IF the next Republican president also violates the U S Constitution? Will libs, including the author of this post, simply sit back and accept it? Or will they trumpet it as a marvelous achievement as they do when the current occupier violates it? See, nothing personal. Freedom-oriented. Legal-oriented. Individualist-oriented. (is that a word? if not, the meaning is clear!)
