The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    white death encircles the Donald

    The Donald appears to be particularly favored by voters who live in counties that correlate with higher rates of death for middle aged whites, fewer numbers of college degree holders, and high losses of manufacturing jobs---this, according to an article in WaPo by Jeff Guo, "Death predicts whether people vote for Donald Trump."  Guo entwines his own research with the recent research by Case/Deaton indicating an increase in the death rate of middle aged whites. While all of this research, imo, is tentative, two things seem evident: 1) a huge segment of middle aged whites are in poor health and relatively poorer economic circumstances and 2) the Donald has a message which is resonating with this "group". I question whether either of the Democratic candidates has a grasp of endangered middle aged Whites, and whether this group  could help defeat Democrats this year. Even more importantly, I wonder what the solution is for people who I now see every day in rural Texas and those I grew up with in a small mill town in Ohio.

    Back in November I wrote a blog about the "Entrapment of working class whites' in which I theorized a "catch--22" predicament for many whites---that their now entrenched view that "government can't and won't deliver anything of value" negates a message that the government can deliver equality. I questioned whether the Democratic theme of the day---eliminating inequality, would resonate with entrapped whites. I could be wrong but it seems that the "inequality" theme among Democrats is somewhat diffused, not the first item on the agenda. In any case, the entrapped whites need not be bothered by vague promises of more equality, they now have the opiate of celebrity belligerence to redirect their pain.

    Assuming the Donald wins the nomination, is there a scenario in which he can pivot with less "know nothing-ness" and belligerence to a broader audience without losing the cutting edge he has with endangered whites, and somehow pull off a win? And if his winning is even a remote possibility, what would be Clinton's strategy? I admit I worry about her lack of affinity with white males, particularly white "working class" males.

    Even as I write this blog in an attempt to understand better the election dynamics, I'm struck by my own insensitivity to the human condition of others, not to exclude the targets of Trump's racism and xenophobia.

    Unbelievably, in this moment I received my first solicitation from the Clinton campaign and not that I'm flattered but with the kind of bucks I lobbed to Obama over a five year period, I was curious as to why they hadn't "bugged" me sooner. However, the phone pitch was all about Trump this, and Trump that---and I wondered, is that all we're going to hear, how to drive down Trump's chances with negatives we already know to exist? The next time I'm solicited, I'm going to give it some dialog---"...tell me this, what is Clinton going to give me that the Donald can't."

    White death be damned. What's in it for me?

    Comments

    Yeah I have sympathy.

    My dad died of alcoholism, but the more I looked into it, the more I came to believe he was a victim of PTSD.

    Class is more important to me than race.

    That is as a political issue.

    Yet, why do Blacks suffer more from incarceration; why do Blacks suffer more from unemployment....why and why and why?

    Because Blacks and Hispanics suffer from class conflicts than any other race.

    I have a conclusion.

    Trump cares about his class.

    Trump does not give one goddamn about unions.

    Trump does not give one goddamn about parity.

    Trump was mad because Obama reminded him that he does not care about anything that involves 'the people'.

    ha

    I do believe that Hillary has to emphasize class as well as race.

    I might have misread your very fine blog.

    But Trump, ironically, emphasizes class over race and yet he never gave a damn about the lower classes or race.

    I do believe that the repubs shall always leave the lower castes without help.

    I have witnessed this truism for fifty years.

    Some of us need help; Black or White or Hispanic or....

     

     

     

     

     


    Thanks, Richard. Help, indeed. God, they were great. A perfect sentiment.


    Oh I had to add this Oxy

    You probably already saw this

    Anyway, I did not

     


    What's a smart, funny black guy doing in the Oval Office?

    I like him and am proud of the support I gave him.

    (The Donald even laughed at the attention. What a phony shit he is).


    Bernie withdraws from the Presidential race.


    This is why I support Bernie Sanders.


    Hal, thanks for your comment. I'm curious about the "income inequality" theme which was Bernie's initial thrust but which has seemed to fade in importance and may be the reason Bernie is fading. I refer to a set of Florida exit polls recently published in the NYT, sorry, can't provide link.

    Only 21% of Democratic voters listed "income inequality" as their most important issue and the 21% was split between those who voted for HRC and for Bernie.

    The other exit question was the Democratic voter's income level and it's pretty clear that income level did not predict their vote one way or the other.

    In terms of the exit polls for Republicans, the "income inequality" question was not reported---either because it wasn't asked or was too small a choice to report on. Of importance were economy/jobs, government spending, terrorism and immigration.

    Even if you and I agree that "income inequality" is a root cause of our societal problems, my issue with Bernie is deliverance. I'm not on his case, but in retrospect the "income inequality" branding ---was never going to win a national election---which was an intuition I had and one of a basket of reasons why I pitched in with HRC.

    If Bernie should win the nomination, the "income inequality" theme would be successfully hung around his neck as "socialism" and the enemy of "freedom".


    You're welcome Oxy.  Although I ultimately don't agree, I appreciate your points that a) a President Clinton would be more likely to deliver half a loaf than a President Sanders would be to deliver a whole one and b) Clinton is more electable.  I won't argue them however as we've all been over that ground multiple times.

    Regarding income inequality, I don't think Trump voters in the main would characterize their candidate as championing income equality nor would the majority say that's what they want.  They might embrace the term fairness but only insofar as they were agreeing with Trump's contention that the economy unfairly rewards job offshorers (a view I share) but also immigrants (a view I do not share).

    So I'm with you part way when you say that Bernie's focus on income inequality could prove harmful in the general election.  Ultimately, I think progressives should campaign on slogans like "fighting for economic justice" or "fighting for economic fairness" over "fighting against income inequality".


    Hal, so the Donald might be the smart one in  the room. Knowing you can't sell the income inequality argument, he has substituted belligerence and direct action as a means of actually making government do something.

    I don't know why but I flashed on the IWW---known as the "wobblies" and their philosophy of direct action and see a sort of parallel.

    "Workers of the World, Unite!" ....behind the guy who's willing to take direct action---the Donald.  


    I actually think Bernie is smart to use the expression "the economy is rigged."  Doesn't Trump say similar stuff?  It brings to mind sinister forces taking advantage of the little guy and gal.   Trump is a fascist for sure.  He is manipulating people who have good reason to be angry and focusing their anger on the wrong targets (mostly) and using violence as a weapon as well.  This is all so very depressing to me.  My hope was that poor, working, and middle-income American men and women of all races, ethnic groups, and education levels would rally behind Bernie. 

    I hope you and the other Clinton supports are right and she will make economic justice a priority.  Again, as you know, color me skeptical.


    I know how passionate you have been. And I might be one of the few people around here who as a resident of Vermont actually voted for the guy. I love him.

    Assuming HRC wins the nomination, Bernie is still extremely important in what happen next. Think of the funds and the freedom he will have to influence specific movements. For example, trying to extend the model of the new Ferguson. Maybe not as grand as down sizing banks, but in the long run, maybe more impactful.

     


     

    Good points Oxy. Trump or not, the GOP will not do a damn thing for white males, except the ones who write big checks for them. They want tax cuts for the rich, resulting in bigger deficits, then cuts in Soc Security. If they have the Oval office they will be hard to stop. They will be hard to stop even if they lose in November. I think Hillary can fight the GOP better than Bernie. She has had 25 years experience with them.

    TOM TOLES WaPo: The players arrayed in the political world know very well what their interests are and would not simply go away with a Sanders victory. .....If systemic change is what you want, systemic change is what you need to work for, and it’s a decades long slog of unglamorous political effort. See the Civil Rights movement. Check out the dedication and sacrifices that were required to move that ball forward...A reordering of the economic order in the United States is a vastly taller order than one Bernie Sanders. His victory wouldn’t achieve it and his defeat needn’t kill it. Politics turns on the question of how much people really want something, and how much work they are really ready to do for it.

    Got a Sanders promo in the mail today. It talked about student debt and how Bernie will tax 'Wall Street speculators' to make make college free.

    As Oceankat posted at a link, Bernie never mentions that the states would have to foot the bill for 30% or so of the cost, and 27 or so wouldn't even cough up 10% for expanding health care under OCare. Pie in the sky. See above.


    NCD, thanks. I hadn't been following the tuition arguments, but the article raises the key issue of implementation.

    Using my own progeny as examples, they have all attained college degrees and some advanced degrees by going the community college route first, working in part time jobs and taking out massive loans. One just obtained a double E degree, works for an aerospace company in a high rent district, makes a lot of money, but she is still struggling to pay off loans. Most of the jobs they have provide for basic housing and essentials but they have little "disposable" income. For them, refinancing student loans would not only help them but help the economy. Again, I haven't been following the tuition and loan issues in detail but a refinance would possibly take it out of state hands and there might be some bipartisan support. But then there is that obstruction thing. We need to move through the reality show phase without losing the White House.

     


    My poor backward little state, New Mexico, has managed to supply tuition scholarships to over 100,000 young people without raising anyones taxes by putting much of the revenues from the State Lottery to productive use.

    Sanders'  redistribution scheme may seem attractive to people who don't understand that the financial institutions he is proposing to tax have more power than the politicians he would depend on to pass his scheme. The other oddity of his proposal is that it promotes the reckless financial casino as a source of this tax and spend program.


    Thanks, Peter. I agree with the inherent contradiction of the financial transactions tax bit of course in the current climate of "cost control" Sanders would be dead meat if he didn't propose an obvious way to pay for the program.

    What irritates me is that the political process now obviates the very thing which could solve some problems---i.e., seeing infrastructure spending as "creating capital", a la the Hoover Damn, the most easily understood example.

    Essentially when you spend money on the military, there's not much carryover. Like brdges and dams, education is a capital asset for the country---so damn it, spend the money, it'll be returned 10 times over.

    I listen to Bloomberg a lot and I get so damn tired of hearing politicians talk down government spending, but then the entire thrust of the financial community is how to make good investments. Imagine if in running a business, if I buy a new truck, I have to sell two old ones to make up for the expenditure. (come to think about it, not a bad idea).

     


    Most of Sanders' reformist platform seems to be lacking any real mechanism to implement these changes but this is just a ploy to offer the rubes something  that appears radical compared to the center right  status quo positions of HRC.

    Infrastructure repair and construction is ongoing and its expansion was an economic boon especially when we were a Producer Nation but since we became a Consumer Nation and now that that economy is imploding new infrastructure doesn't appear to have much purpose other than make-work and political  legacy boondoggles.

    Hoover Dam is a good, if unintentional, example of a once productive economy that has silted/dried up and won't be producing anything in a few short years.

    It is a sad but true fact that the MIC is a productive segment of our economy even if these expenditures don't produce bridges to nowhere or educate young people for jobs that don't exist. Any large cutback in MIC spending would create a deeper depression than we already are experiencing even if that savings was spent on make-work projects that polish up the appearance of a hollow economy.


    Infrastructure repair is not make work. Whether we are a productive nation of not is debatable despite your black/white analysis. But people still exist, in ever larger numbers, and they are using  and need to continue using that infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers most recent report gives our infrastructure a D+ rating.

    The 2013 Report Card grades show we have a significant backlog of overdue maintenance across our  infrastructure systems, a pressing need for modernization

    People are still driving on roads and bridges that are past their replacement date. They are still shitting in toilets and the waste must go somewhere when the toilet is flushed and it must be process. People still use and need water to drink and bathe with. People still use and need an electric grid to deliver energy to their homes.

    The work needs to be done. It's not make work.


    Ocean-Kat, thanks for your comments.


    Existing infrastructure repair and rebuilding will provide smooth roads for people to use to get to their low paying jobs that don't produce enough tax revenue to finance even that repair and without new high paying manufacturing/service jobs this trend will continue its downward spiral of debt and or deterioration.

    There is no plan to revitalize our economy, if it is even possible so building new infrastructure is make-work or boondoggle, see the California High Speed Rail project or in NM our little Billion Dollar RailRunner commuter train, that lacks and will always lack enough commuters to recoup even a fraction of the costs.

    Most of our consumer and higher value manufactured products are delivered from foreign sources by private rail and short haul local trucking and almost all of those containers return empty except for the scrap metals  being mined from our abandoned manufacturing and urban  infrastructure so our infrastructure is a resource now not an asset for growth or prosperity.

    The highway through my little town is being widened and repaired while growth here is stagnant and many productive businesses have shut down only being replaced by a liquor store and payday/title loan sharks. This was a needed improvement but it will do nothing to change the economic reality we all face.


    There is no data to support your opinion that infrastructure repair will not boost the economy.


    Well, the Japanese poured concrete for.2 decades without budging the needle. "Needed infrastructure" means needed. Bridges to nowhere help no one. But old roads that damage trucks and cause accidents burn money and lower competitiveness.


    I was focusing on necessary road, bridge, etc repairs.


    I was thinking of capital expenditures which would solve problems. For example, impossible traffic and high housing costs in the most high paying job areas either prevent workers from accessing the jobs, or if they manage to find a place to live, become trapped in a defeating cycle of increasing rents.


    The whole Bridge to Nowhere meme is an example of democratic political bullshitting. It was a bridge to somewhere, to Gravina Island with small community that serviced not just that community but significant numbers of tourists every year. In addition the bridge would have spurred developement and increased the tourism to the island. There are roads and bridges to "nowhere" all over the US in areas with low population density. A 6 mile road in a high pop. area might serve 1,000 homes while a 20 mile stretch in a low density area might serve only 10. Without roads and bridges to these low density areas millions of rural residents would be stuck traveling on dirt roads often unpassable due to rains. Dirt roads aren't free either. They need to be periodically maintained.

    We don't just have bridges and roads to nowhere. We have electric wires to nowhere and water pipes to nowhere. We've decided as a nation that people living in rural areas with low density populations should get bridges and paved roads, and electricity, and water. The costs of running wire and pipe to these rural areas was too expensive for private companies to find profitable so governments subsidized them.

    The Gravina Island bridge was an effective democratic attack on Sarah Palin but it was bullshit. I, as a democrat, supported the bridge and thought it was a good project, a wise investment. People can disagree with that opinion but the conversation was never about the real issue, where and how much should the government invest in infrastructure in low density rural areas. it was hyped up political bullshit designed to make Palin look like a fool. There was so much actual stupid shit that came out of her mouth that I didn't think we needed to spin the bridge to make her look foolish.

     


    I was more referring to Japan's multiple bridges and highways to nowhere - almost every infrastructure project will have its critics, but en masse theirs were simply a way to try to futilely stimulate the economy while paving the outback. Agree that with Palin there was enough easy fruit without sexist or overblown out-of-context attacks.

    [I think the Alaskan bridge was more seen as Murkowski's patronage, and it looks like Palin cancelled Alaska's smaller share of the payment but Alaska kept the federal funds anyway. In the context of Katrina, it was a lot of money. In the context of the Iraq War, it was a drop in the bucket.]


    Yes, the story is more complex than my brief summary. I focused on the national furor when democrats spun it to attack Palin. When you use Bridge to Nowhere it calls to mind that furor. Reasonable people can disagree whether the Gravina Bridge was a wise investment to service a rural community or made economic sense for rural development and tourism. But the hyped up language of Bridge to Nowhere was demagoguing instead of  having a rational discussion of those issues.

    I haven't read about Japan's infrastructure spending so I can't comment. But I agree that the money can be misspent or wasted.


    Krugman used to discuss this quite a bit,

    The other reason that Japan does not look like a country in the midst of a depression is that the government has found a concrete solution to the problem of mass unemployment. By ''concrete,'' I don't mean serious, hardheaded, substantial. I mean concrete, as in roads, dams and bridges.

    Think of it as the W.P.A. on steroids. Over the past decade Japan has used enormous public works projects as a way to create jobs and pump money into the economy. The statistics are awesome. In 1996 Japan's public works spending, as a share of G.D.P., was more than four times that of the United States. Japan poured as much concrete as we did, though it has a little less than half our population and 4 percent of our land area. One Japanese worker in 10 was employed in the construction industry, far more than in other advanced countries.

    Without those public works programs, things might have been much worse. For there is no question that enormous public spending has helped keep the economy from sliding into a true, unambiguous depression. As one Japan expert, Adam Posen of the Institute for International Economics, points out, the record of the 1990's is unmistakable. Every time the government tries to scale back its spending, as it did under Prime Minster Ryutaro Hashimoto back in 1997, the economy goes into a recession. Every time the government goes back to its free-spending ways, as it did after Hashimoto resigned in disgrace, the economy perks up a bit.

    Now for the bad news: deficit spending has slowed the Japanese economy's slide, but it has not reversed it. That is, the public works programs provide only temporary, symptomatic economic relief. The favorable effects last only as long as the spending itself. They don't seem to lay the basis for a permanent turnaround.

    And meanwhile, though Japan has thus far avoided mass unemployment, its policy of massive public works spending has produced many nasty side effects. One is the vast environmental damage that has been inflicted in the name of job creation. Another is pervasive corruption, as rakeoffs and kickbacks have become a way of life, distorting the whole economic and political system.

    Furthermore, a decade of huge deficit spending has left Japan with an enormous public debt. Japan last ran a budget surplus in 1992. In that year, the nation's public debt was about 60 percent of G.D.P., about the average for advanced countries and slightly less than the figure for the United States. The years of deficit spending since then have pushed Japan's debt above 130 percent of G.D.P. That's the highest ratio among advanced nations, considerably worse than either Belgium or Italy, the traditional champions. It's almost twice the advanced-country average and 2.5 times the figure for the United States.

    but here's someone else's article from 2008:

    Here at The Daily Reckoning we’ve never met a tax cut we didn’t like. But we smell sushi. No country ever tried as much fiscal stimulus as Japan. After cutting rates down to “effectively zero,” the Japanese embarked on the biggest program of unnecessary government spending in history. With no military to waste money, it had to turn to public works. New highways to nowhere…new bridges… new rail lines, by the late ’90s, the little island of Japan was pouring more concrete than all the fifty states. It was very stimulating to cement sellers. But as to the economy…it did nothing. Here we are, 18 years later…and the Nikkei index is still down by two thirds.

    Interestingly, on the way I ran across this from Financial Times:

    Any discussion has to start with China, which poured more concrete between 2010 and 2013 than the US did in the entire 20th century. A reading of the recent history of investment-driven economies — whether in Japan before the oil shock of the 1970s and 1980s or the Asian tigers in the late 1990s — tells us that growth does not fall off gently.

    A board manufacturer in Europe was telling me the need to go to China for what he produces is fading - automation removes Chinese advantages, and the long distances and poor communications complicate things. Is a shift nearing for Asian production?


    Peter, you remind me of that Vermont joke where the flatlanders stop a farmer and ask directions to a town. After some deliberation and back and forth, he can't give any directions, he says to the city folks, "Nope, you can't get there from here".

    Now your town is a case in point. It's not that there aren't solutions, but they have to be conceptualized and implemented. There are no local solutions to anything, no way up?


    The Donald was encircled by Wapo editorial staff and the entire interview can be accessed on the Wapo site. His lack of knowledge is really astounding. Reminds me of Couric's interview with Palin.