Gender And the 2016 Elections. Part I: How Did Women And Men Say They Voted?

This is the first of three posts, a mini-series on sex differences in voting behavior, on the possible impact of sexism or misogyny as one of the motivating forces for some/many voters and, finally, my own views on how Hillary Clinton's run was framed in much of the media.

I'm beginning with the CNN exit poll data.*

Here is the table which shows how men and women in various ethnic and racial groups said they voted in the 2016 presidential elections:

And here is the corresponding exit polls table from the 2012 elections:

What would first strike you about those two tables?  Do you notice how similar the two sets of exit poll results are?  How it is the whites who constitute the vast majority of the Republican Party?  How it is the blacks who overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party?

How in every racial and ethnic category men are more likely to vote for the Republican candidate than women?**

And, of course, how close the various numbers are to each other.

There are differences, too.  Hillary Clinton got a lower percentage of votes than Barack Obama in every single sex-race-ethnicity category except that for white women, and third party candidates got more votes in 2016 than in 2012.

All that is a useful reminder, something to keep in mind while the media chews and chews and will not swallow the topic of angry white working class people in the swing states***:  The overall picture suggests that Americans voted fairly closely the same way in 2016 and in 2012, though Barack Obama was better liked than Hillary Clinton.

And that is the shock, of course, because whatever nasty things one might say about Mitt Romney, he is not a carnival barker like Donald J. Trump, who has already broken many of his campaign promises.  Neither was Mitt Romney famous for pussy-grabbing or for calling Mexicans rapists or for wanting to erect a wall against the Mexican border. ****

For what it is worth, here is the table on how much grabbing women by their pussies bothered voters in 2016:

I don't want to exaggerate the similarity of the 2012 and 2016 exit poll results.  As I already noted, Clinton was less popular than Obama, and third party candidates played a larger role in 2016.  The tables on voting by gender and marital status also show differences.

Here's the 2016 table:

And here's the 2012 table:

Note the very large drop among unmarried men from the Democratic column and also the fairly large increase in the number of married women in that same column.  The overall effect in 2016 exit polls is to leave the married men as the only group which shows a strong preference for Trump.

What caused these changes, assuming that the exit poll figures are a good measure of actual votes?

Your guesses are as good as mine, though it's interesting that the unmarried men's loss in the Democratic column didn't benefit only Trump but also third-party candidates.

----------

*  All the 2016 tables in this post are from this source, all the 2012 tables from this source.

Exit poll data should be treated with some caution, because it might not create a representative sample of all votes cast, for various reasons.  Note, also, that these polls are for the whole country, not just for the swing states.

** The same pattern can be found in this table which looks at party-membership and gender in voting (2016):

*** I get the focus on the swing states, but they are the swing states because of the overall patterns of voting in the country, so those overall patterns matter, too.

****  My impression is that those Trump utterances didn't matter very much, but I may be mistaken.  For example, that Latinos and Latinas in the two sets of exit polls stated that they voted for Trump roughly at the same percentages as they voted for Romney might not mean that they weren't bothered by Trump's nasty comments about Mexicans.  The alternative explanation is that they were troubled by that hostility, but that their demographic groups are becoming more conservative over time and thus more likely to vote for the Republican candidate.  From that angle Trump may have lost some of their votes.

What Trump Is Giving To His Angry Working-Class Voters This Christmas

Several beautifully wrapped up huge packages, some of which I peeked at in an earlier post.  But Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.

Here is Steven Mnuchin (hold your nose and sneeze to get that said), a Wall Street insider, who is Trump's pick for the Treasury Secretary:

Mnuchin is a Wall Street veteran who spent nearly 20 years at Goldman Sachs before starting his own hedge fund, Dune Capital. He leapt into the banking industry when he led a group of investors in the purchase of lender, IndyMac, during the financial crisis. That bank was eventually bought by CIT.
His financial industry experience has heartened Wall Street insiders, but left some Democratic lawmakers and progressive groups crying foul. Mnuchin "made himself enormously wealthy by cashing in on the country's financial collapse," Take on Wall Street, a progressive group calling for Wall Street reform, said in a statement.

Mnuchin is planning to relax those awful regulations which keep the financial industry from happily gambling the world into another Great Recession!

You know gallows humor?  Well, that's what makes me giggle right now, because Trump repeatedly preached about crooked Hillary and her Wall Street connections in his rallies, and then there is this, from the donaldjtrump.com, posted before the elections, I presume:

Hillary Clinton talks a big game on lending a helping hand to regular Americans, but her revenue stream suggests that she’s actually holding her hands out to big banks on Wall Street. Over the years, the Democratic nominee has accepted $3 million in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions. Collectively, it is estimated that the Clintons have pulled in around $69 million in political contributions from Wall Street.
But the Clinton corruption didn’t stop at wads of Wall Street cash and big bank-friendly policy. Individuals from Wall Street and Big Tech were also rewarded with positions in Bill Clinton’s White House. The Clinton cartel has been auctioning influence in Washington for decades, and the starting bid has only increased over the years.

Bolds are mine.

------

PS This Fortune article points out that Mnuchin will be the 77th white man to run the Treasury.  Here is the list of the previous guys.  Fun stuff.

The Demolition Derby Administration Keeps Shaping Up: Tom Price To Wreck Health Care.

Tom Price has been selected to get rid of Obamacare.  Getting rid of Obamacare will be a great victory for this angry Trump-voter:

“I went from the guy who smoked $50 cigars in his hot tub, to the guy who was doing everything he could just to stay afloat,” Chris said. Taxes alone on his new home were $20,000 a year. The lien against it was more than $1 million. He sold everything he could – his Lionel train collection, his vintage guitar collection, his restored cars.

His lawyers said he should declare bankruptcy, but he felt it was “like wearing a scarlet letter” and refused. Trying to save the house became his first priority, so he let other things lapse, and when his family health insurance reached $3,900 a month in 2012, from the $900 it had been three years earlier, “I had to do something I swore I would never do,” he says, and he dropped his coverage.

He put his children on New York state’s low-income program, a “handout” that “I used as a safety net — some people don’t, but I actually did.” He and his wife, in turn, refused to apply for Medicaid and just “sucked it up. And if we had to see a doctor, we paid cash.” And when he didn’t have the cash? Ultrasound to break up his kidney stones would have cost $8,000, he said, “so I pissed blood for weeks instead.”

Same when he broke his arm and ankle in a motorcycle accident. “I splinted and wrapped it and had a friend who is a vet X-ray it,” he said. “I took it easy, and it healed. I got through it with no government help.”

Eventually, he did become insured again — under an Obamacare policy.

Emphasis is mine.  But the whole story is an interesting one, from the rage at losing the gilded paradise to the rage at having to depend on "government handouts."   And do read the whole thing for his use of the term "cunt" in social media.

Well, now those who voted for Trump for other reasons can relax, because Obamacare indeed will be repealed and millions of Americans, once again, can try to figure out ways to save enough for their health care expenses.  A week in intensive care?  Set aside several hundred thousands, in case you might ever need that care, because the Trump alternative focuses on just that:  the old-time Health Savings Accounts.

Tom Price is a gift that keeps on giving, not only for the working poor of all races and ethnic groups, but also for women in general.  He is strictly opposed to abortion, he fought against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act and he opposed the mandatory coverage of birth control in the ACA for religious reasons.  He is also opposed to same-sex marriage.

A Good Ole Boy, in short.  And just the kind of man we might expect if Trump was all lies about how he is an outsider who will drain the Washington swamp.

Watching this administration develop would be great fun (the popcorn and beer kind of fun) if we were sitting in comfortable chairs on some other planet, far far away.

A Chess Genius Or A Two-Year-Old Prone To Temper Tantrums?

Which best describes our Dear Leader-Elect?  You decide!  And you don't have to base that decision on any facts or observations, because our new era is one of emotions!

I know that sounds surprising, given that it's women who are prone to hysteria (as is widely known in the manosphere and white supremacist websites*).  Luckily we narrowly missed that frightening bullet of being ruled by the petticoats!  But nevertheless, this is the era of Emotions As Information.

This makes writing political satire an immensely tricky exercise.  While reading obituaries (sad to hear about the passing of Ron Glass), I noted an odd new feeling in me, one that I have never associated with obituaries, and that was envy.  At least those who have moved on cannot be harmed by the coming Trump Reich.

Sigh.

Onwards and upwards.  The Green Party recount efforts made Trump answer, in his typical two-year-old-who-wasn't-allowed-to-eat-his-toys manner, that Hillary Clinton's massive lead in popular votes was caused by millions of people voting illegally.

That there is no evidence of that doesn't matter at all.   Our Dear Leader-Elect has spoken.

Oh, but there IS evidence, you might mutter, if you live in that alternative reality where we lefties are all sock-puppets of George Soros (George, where is my check?), because the Pew Center published a study about errors in the voter registration lists.  You need to read that study to find out that it is not about illegal voting but about the state of the voter registration lists which often include deceased people or wrong addresses for people who have moved and so on.

But that study is the one the conservatives cite to support Trump's tweet (we have a president-elect who tweets everything that comes into his head so enemies can read it!) about all those illegal votes:

 

So was that tweet the masterly move of a chess champion who can predict the million moves his opponent might make in the future as a response to any one of his moves? Some Republicans believe so:

But the RNC member ― who like most in the RNC was not originally a fan of the New York City businessman ― said he has come to see that Trump is a master of reading the national landscape and manipulating it to his own ends.
“It’s clear to me, at this moment, that he understands the public, the media, and the left better than I ever imagined,” he said, adding that “the left’s” push for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were designed to weaken Trump. “He is concerned that weeks will drag on with discussions about the legitimacy of his presidency. ... So once again he changes the discussion.”

Or was it just the reflexive response by someone who cannot stand the idea of losing in anything at all, someone who will lash out at every perceived insult?

I guess he could be both a chess genius and a two-year-old lying on the floor, screaming with a red face and kicking his heels against the carpet, if we define the former as someone who knows his reality show audience, someone who understands that now you can go as low as you wish and those who criticize the pussy-grabber-in-chief are just sore losers.

Somehow I prefer sore losers to a sore winner who is anything but presidential.

------

*  For instance:

Spencer readily admits that women make up a small portion of the alt-right, but he has also said that most women secretly crave alt-right boyfriends because they want "alpha genes" and "alpha sperm." He also believes women are unsuited to some roles in government: "Women should never be allowed to make foreign policy," he tweeted during the first presidential debate. "It's not that they're 'weak.' To the contrary, their vindictiveness knows no bounds."

Vindictive bitches!  Compare that to how calmly Donald Trump takes insults.

And:

Gamergate and the broader anti-feminist crusade known as the men's rights movement have percolated throughout the alt-right. Yiannopoulos often denounces feminists and Black Lives Matter in the same breath. Cernovich, who made a name for himself as a Gamergate instigator, is a staunch defender of white-male identity politics: Political correctness prevents discussion of obvious truths, in his view, whether it's the innate "neuroticism" of women or the criminal proclivities of certain ethnic groups.

Some Friday Fun

Amazon sells a Make America Great Again (MAGA) Christmas ornament.  The comments reviewers have left on the site are a fun read.  So are the questions and answers section.

The Most Worrisome Headline in the 2016 US Politics

Is this:

Clinton's popular vote lead surpasses 2 million

Trump's administration will be a minority government, with no mandate.  Yet his picks show an extremist taint, a desire to pull the country even further to the wobbly right edge of political thinking.  That's fascinating.  And worrisome.

 

 

 

The Demolition Derby Administration

It's fun, on this Thanksgiving Day, to think about the kind of administration Donald Trump plans to give us as a present for at least the next four years.

A few examples:

1.  The administration's Chief Strategist is the Breitbart News Chief Executive Stephen Bannon, who once called the Breitbart site "the platform of the Alt Right":

We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago. Under Bannon's leadership, the site has plunged into the fever swamps of conservatism, cheering white nationalist groups as an "eclectic mix of renegades," accusing President Barack Obama of importing "more hating Muslims," and waging an incessant war against the purveyors of "political correctness."

 The Alt Right is polite-speak for racists, misogynists and white supremacists.
Their representative is now the chief strategist of this country.  And sure, perhaps Bannon doesn't really believe in white supremacy, but he certainly exploited its dog whistles in designing Trump's presidential campaign.

2.  The man Trump picked to oversee the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is Myron Ebell.  He doesn't believe that climate change is real.  He has no qualifications relevant for that job, and:

In an interview with Business Insider in August, Ebell repeatedly referred to climate scientists as "global warming alarmists" and suggested that climate research is in fact an arm of a coordinated political movement.
"I think that the global warming movement has three parts," he said. "One is to exaggerate the rate of warming, one is to exaggerate the potential impacts of warming and how soon they may occur, and the third is to underestimate wildly the costs of reducing our emissions by the magical amount that they have picked."

3.  Trump's choice for the head of the Department of Education is a billionaire who wants to gut public education:

Betsy DeVos is hardly a household name, but the Michigan billionaire and conservative activist has quietly helped change the education landscape in many states, spending millions of dollars in a successful push to expand voucher programs that give families taxpayer dollars to pay for private and religious schools.

What fun we will have if DeVos succeeds in that and taxpayer-funded madrasas sprout up all over the United States!  I very much doubt deVos thinks of any other religion than Christianity when she promotes religious education.

Anyway, public education is at risk.  There are good theoretical reasons why markets don't do very well in education, and there are extremely important reasons for worrying about the rise of sectarian religious education.

4.  Trump's Attorney General will be Jeff Sessions.  He is going to lead the agency in charge of protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans:

This is not the first time Sessions has earned a presidential nomination as an administrator of justice. In 1986, President Reagan tapped him to serve as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, but at the time the Senate found him too racist for the post, and he became the second nominee in 50 years to be denied an appointment.
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions was pressed on accusations that he had called a black prosecutor “boy” and a white civil rights attorney “a disgrace to his race.” He was called out on his comment that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was OK until I found out they smoked pot” and that the NAACP and ACLU were “trying to force civil rights down the throats of people.”

Sessions has also been opposed to

the Violence Against Women Act, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and the expansion of anti-hate legislation to include sexual orientation.
He fought the removal of the Confederate flag from public buildings, immigration reform, and criminal justice reform.

The White Supremacists love Sessions as the Attorney General!  They love him.

The rumor mill has also listed the fracking mogul Harold Hamm as one of the forerunners for the Secretary of Energy, which would be terrible news for alternative energy.  Though Hamm is not the only possible pick, all the picks look like energy insiders to me.  You know, the side which wants oil to remain the only feasible alternative.

And so it goes.  The basic principle Trump uses is demolition derby for the departments he hates*, which would be those departments not catering for the interests of the one percenters or the religionists.  The departments he loves get something different, of course, and that would be those departments which are needed to protect the one percenters:  the department of War (or whatever euphemism you wish to give it) and those arms of the law which must embrace nothing but the property rights of the one percent.

-----------

* Or picking a wolf to mind the sheep, if you wish.  All Americans are invited to the feasts of the Trump administration, but some of us will be the main course, the appetizer or the dessert, while others should dress appropriately (white hoods?) to sit down and enjoy the meal.

Today's Our Dear Leader-Elect News

1.  Greetings from the Alternative Reality (Alt Right) where white supremacist-misogynists regard Trump's victory as theirs.  The Washington Post tells us about the thoughts of one Richard Spencer, a wannabe Nazi, who gave a speech to his white supremacist followers:

For years, Spencer and his followers worked in obscure corners of the Internet to promote pride in white identity and the creation of an “ethno-state” that would banish minorities. Then came the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, whose attacks on undocumented immigrants, Muslims and political correctness deeply resonated with them. They crusaded for him on Twitter and celebrated his improbable victory as a seminal moment for their cause.

They exulted again when Trump announced that his chief White House strategist would be former Breitbart News chairman Stephen K. Bannon, who once called his site “the platform for the alt-right.”

You can imagine what Spencer's utopia would look like, because you may have read about one attempt at it in your history books:  The forced removal of all other races from the White Homeland, the means of that removal not spelled out clearly.  But Spencer is also very clear on what the role of white women would be in that utopia:

Spencer, of course, would expel Muslims from his ethno-state. And most women, he said as he was being driven from the hotel to his next appointment, would return to their traditional role of bearing children.

As I've written before, the White Bigots' dreams are very similar to the dreams of ISIS, with the proper adjustments to who it is who is allowed to exist in their dystopias.  Women, always, are to be viewed as breeding stock.

I haven't heard our Dear Leader-Elect say much anything about these wonderful people and their proposals about the rest of us.  Until he disowns them I'm assuming that he agrees with their platform.

2.  Our Dear Leader-Elect has now met some representatives of the media.  In that he has shown a mature and statesman-like attitude:

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.
“It was like a f−−−ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.
“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.
“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing-down,” the source added.
A second source confirmed the fireworks.
“The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.
“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

So.  The freedom of the press is the cornerstone of democracy, right?  If the US media can be bullied into reporting only adulatory snippets about our Dear Leader-Elect, we are going to be in deep s**t. 

But at least Mr. Trump is following in the footsteps of another Great Leader, Idi Amin:

3.  Our Dear Leader-Elect wants Britain to appoint the British version of a white supremacist leader as Britain's ambassador to Washington, DC.  That would be Nigel Farage who also believes that working mothers are worth less than working men because they have children, the same Nigel Farage who interpreted Trump's pussy-grabbing stories as something all guys do and also as alpha-male boasting.

But those are extremely minor aspects of Mr. Farage's platform.

As to this whole little debacle:

It is unprecedented for an incoming US president to ask a world leader to appoint an opposing party leader as ambassador, and the statement puts May in a difficult position.

...

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, said he was baffled by the tweet. “UK ambassador in DC exists to defend UK interests in US, not US interests in UK,” he tweeted. “Can’t have foreign presidents deciding who our [ambassador] should be.”

Political rules and customs as well as laws are for Little People, not for our Dear Leader.

The new Alternative Reality is shaping up quite nicely.

The End of Identity Liberalism. Or The Re-Branding the Democratic Party

As is common in the aftermath of a loss (1), various voices are proposing a new and improved Democratic Party or a new and improved liberalism, the kind which can attract the white working class guys in the Rust Belt.

So you'd guess that those voices would mention that we need to fight income inequality, that we need to fight for saner labor markets, living wages, better parental and sick leave arrangements and so on, right?

You'd guess only partially right.  Some do advocate those things, as have I many times in the past.  But others advocate something different, and Mark Lilla is one of those.

Mr. Lilla wants to see the end of identity liberalism, because it divides us and doesn't unite us:

But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly (1), as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them.

 It's ironic that Bill Clinton's national health insurance proposal failed miserably.  It's even more ironic that Bill Clinton's support for various globalization initiatives is where the seeds of the Rust Belt devastation were scattered.  But never mind, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were unifiers, says Mark Lilla.

Lilla's piece is cleverly written, because most of the important achievements of what he calls identity liberalism are picked from the past, while the more recent examples he mentions are largely about the "celebration" of diversity and about the doings of privileged (hah!) college students inside the gentle world of academics.

Stacking the deck that way is unfair.  Many might agree with his message if the forms  identity liberalism take consist of nothing but, say,  a focus on trigger warnings and linguistic purity policing on the left.  But Lilla's examples are carefully picked to give that impression.

In reality the concept of "identity" is much more important than that:  Consider that "identity" is something others can impose on us (you n***er, you c**t), consider that it can determine what we may do with our economic careers and working lives, consider that it can determine what kinds of crimes might victimize us, consider that people like Mark Lilla don't really see their own stances determined by "identity," because the face he sees in the mirror while shaving is the default face of this country.

Thus, I have several points to make about his argument that the Democratic Party must now focus on issues which unify us, not on issues which divide us.

A Tourist In An Alternative Reality. Visiting The Extreme Right.

So I spent some of my precious hours studying to understand those who are drawn to the extremist thinking of Stephen Bannon, the man who is promising us the reign of the working man.  And the most important truth I brought home with me is this:  Those folks really do live in an alternative theory, with a very different alternative set of "facts."

For instance, did you know that George Soros is behind everything having to do with the progressive causes?  Hillary Clinton was his puppet, he funded and perhaps hired professional agitators for the Black Lives Matter protests.  Indeed, because he has given money to all sorts of liberal causes, from La Raza to NOW, all those organizations now do his bidding.

Many YouTube videos provide "evidence" on all this, including "evidence" on what George Soros has said publicly, though the problem is that those statements come without the questions he answered or the context in which he answered them.

Some of the videos also show brown people committing violent acts or wrecking lamp posts and so on, but there is no information who the people in the clips are, where the videos were taken or when.  We are simply told that the violence is by, say, Middle Eastern or African refugees in Europe, and that Soros is somehow behind the refugee crisis.

Interviewing the New Ideologue of This Country

Stephen Bannon, of the Breitbart News fame, and now Donald Trump's ideological brains, has given an interview about our future:  It's going to be fifty years of Alt Right power.  Or white supremacy, if you wish.

At the end of the interview, the writer of the piece says this:

Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus — in and out of Bannon's office as we talk — as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision, goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end-runs of a party significant parts of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.
"I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

Bolds are mine.  So I guess what Bannon is openly willing to defend is not white supremacy, but male supremacy.

From The No-Comment Files

This:

We are going to have a lot more of this.

And this:

The rules are different now. 

Well, they have always been different for Democrats.  Republicans can yell "Lock Her Up" at rallies, Wall Streeters can yell "Lock Her Up," too, but no, you can't boo Mike Pence at a Broadway Show because that is rude.  Talking about pussy-grabbing, however, is not rude, and our new Attorney General -elect isn't even sure if it's sexual harassment to grab someone's vulva.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that those pesky rules are different for girls, too. 

My Thirteenth Blog Anniversary

Was on the election day.  There's a deep message in that, I guess.

Thank you for your company along whichever section of the road you have traveled with me.

A White Supremacist Speaks

To get a better idea of the people who believe that Donald Trump is in their camp, check out this NPR interview with one white supremacist.  David Duke also loves Trump's choices.  And more about Stephen Bannon.

I put my hazmat  suit on a few weeks ago and waded into several white supremacist sites (they hide behind the term Alt Right).  It's important to point out that those sites are also woman-loathing.  White women wouldn't have a good time inside the white supremacy.  Women are seen as a fertility resource, owned by the men in the movement, and many of the more misogynist MRA themes about women are very common on the Alt Right sites:  Women are treacherous, manipulative and in need of male control in all spheres of their lives.

The Post-Election Anger

I understand the anger of those who lost.  The results had not been predicted, the winner didn't only campaigned on economic policies which struck a chord, but also on racism, white supremacy and misogyny, and those, too, struck a chord or at least didn't matter enough for many who voted for Trump.  The new America that is being created is not going to be a country of equal opportunities for all.  After all, Stephen Bannon is its head strategist.

What I don't understand is the continuing anger of those who won, especially the radical extremist wing of the Trumpeteers.  Yet there are many examples of that anger, from the attacks against minorities and women on the streets to the Starbuck protests and plans to boycott firms such as Pepsi, because of this:

 PepsiCo garnered their wrath last week when CEO Indra Nooyi talked about the election in an interview with the New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin at a conference on Thursday. “They are all in mourning,” she said of her daughters and employees. “Our employees are all crying. And the question that they’re asking, especially those who are not white: ‘Are we safe?’ Women are asking: ‘Are we safe?’ LGBT people are asking: ‘Are we safe?’ I never thought I’d have had to answer those questions.”

These comments were unacceptable to the radical extremist Trumpeteers.

Just think of that for a moment.  Rather than reassuring all of us who belong to the groups (which together constitute the majority) Trump kept Othering all through his campaign, those Others should now do what?  Shut up?  Submit?

What would a mature leader do in this situation?  Let me think.  How about giving a speech telling his supporters to stop the harassment and slurs?  How about reassuring people who have been Othered that they are going to be safe?

Donald Trump may be mature in age, but he is certainly extremely immature as a statesman.  Indeed, he is doing very little to rein in the white male supremacist wing of his coalition.  I doubt he cares, to be quite honest, because this is not about accolades and people cheering him.

How To Fight Back: Second Tip: Refuse To Condone Hate

The Southern Poverty Law Center has tips on community organizing against hate.

They have a petition to ask Donald Trump to condemn bigotry and hatred (heh).

Added later, because I forgot the most important part of this post:

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

For Laughs

From the Onion, a political satire site:

A video letting you get acquainted with Stephen Bannon, Trump's Best Friend Forever.

The great relief when the tyrannical yoke of moderate respect for women has been removed by the election of the pussy-grabber-in-chief.

Today's Political Reading List

From one of those disgusting coastal elitists.  What else can you possibly call a goddess, though a little more respect is expected.  After all, it might rain snakes next week if I feel so inclined, and I do.

More seriously, I am gathering here articles which enhance our understanding of some aspects of the 2016 elections and which might point out areas where action is beneficial.

 Zeynep Tufekci writes about the role of fake political news on Facebook.  Social media is now the most important source for news in the United States, but not all those news are real ones.  Two examples:

Donald J. Trump’s supporters were probably heartened in September, when, according to an article shared nearly a million times on Facebook, the candidate received an endorsement from Pope Francis. Their opinions on Hillary Clinton may have soured even further after reading a Denver Guardian article that also spread widely on Facebook, which reported days before the election that an F.B.I. agent suspected of involvement in leaking Mrs. Clinton’s emails was found dead in an apparent murder-suicide.

There is just one problem with these articles: They were completely fake.

The Denver Guardian doesn't even exist.  It turns out that teenagers in Macedonia were behind many of the false right-wing news, because they could make money out of them.  I recommend the entire Tufekci article.

We must demand that Facebook does better than this.

Several articles have recently surfaced on rural white resentment, sometimes on rural white Christian resentment.  I recommend this view of what took place in the rural areas of Wisconsin, and this very opposite view concerning what the problem really might be.

The above overlaps with white working class resentments, whether they are economic, racist or sexist or (as is most likely to be the case) a knotted mess of all of those things*.  This is one take on some roots of that resentment.  It also mentions the traditional views about gender roles in that population.  Some argue that the women among the white working class didn't mind Trump's grab-them-by-the-pussy utterances, because that kind of stuff is just everyday life for them, just the way they believe men are.

The recent treatment of white working class voters as the possible-to-swing-voter-group that Democrats lost in this election is extensive all over the media**, even though most of those who voted for Donald Trump were your usual suspects:  Registered Republican voters, many quite affluent.  The white working class voters got prominence because of their role of defeating Hillary Clinton in the swing states.

What should be done about the white working class deserting the Democratic Party?***  Should anything be done to lure them back?  Or should we just wait for them/us to die out?

Most of what I've read on the latter topic veers into the distasteful category.  For instance, to write, with hope,  that the demographic decline of whites in the United States will take care of the problem the Democratic  Party has amounts to saying that we'll just wait until you guys die out, taking your cultures**** to extinction with you.

That is pretty insulting. Try replacing "whites" in such statements with any other racial or ethnic group and you will see what I mean.  And so do those white working class members who voted for Trump.

On the other hand, those who urge the Democratic Party to focus on the resentments of white working class voters will have to explain to me how the Party would cope with the fact that many of those resentments are not purely about economics but also about race and gender roles.

An increased focus on jobs, pay, vacations and combating rapidly rising economic inequality gets my strong recommendation.

But what compromises would that entail, given the intertwined nature of economic, racial and sexual resentment?  Would women's issues (affecting more than half of the population) once again be labeled "special interests," something to be put on the back burner?  I have recently met that old argument again.



--------

*  As described in this article:

What they want is what they used to have: predictable jobs and long-standing social networks in stable communities. As liberals note, the social networks in which they were embedded reflected strict racial and gender hierarchies and enforced a conformity to community norms that was very painful for gays and lesbians, political dissidents and women who dreamed of doing something in the world outside the home. But they provided a stability that has since disappeared.

More on all that, especially the role of women voters (of all races and ethnic groups) and issues affecting women will be served to you in the near future.  On this here blog.

**  See here for a critique of the white working class focus.  Possible links to the white working class topic are so many that I cannot pick among them.  They are easily found, however.

In reading them remember a couple of important caveats:  First, the voting data we have now is from exit polls, which have their problems, and, second, the working class doesn't consist of only white workers, and despite the election-linked focus on white working class men, the economic plight of both working class women and minority men is greater, on average, than that of white working class men.

*** Note that the desertion of the party by the white working class began a long time ago.  Remember the Reagan Democrats?

****  It's crucial to stress that many in the white working class, both men and women, voted for Hillary Clinton.  We must not create a bogeyman out of one group, when most of those who voted for Trump were long-term Republican voters.  And yes, it's "cultures" in plural, because the working class cultures are place-specific.

Let's See What Trump Is Doing For His Not-So-Wealthy Base

For all those who voted for economic Change with a capital c*, let's see what the tea leaves predict might change, compared to the Obama administration:


1.  The estate tax might go away.  Such a relief, because it currently affects all ordinary Americans who leave 5.45 million dollars or more to their heirs.  I can already see the boom this causes in the Rust Belt, even if the Trump administration replaces it with a capital gains tax for that portion of the inheritance which exceeds 10 million dollars:

If estate tax repeal happens, it would be a tremendous gimme to the rich (including eventually Trump and his family). In tax year 2015, just 4,918 estates paid $17 billion in estate taxes (less than 1% of federal revenue). More than a third was raised from the richest of the rich—the 266 estates valued at $50 million or more brought in $7.4 billion to the Treasury.

2.. Wall Street is celebrating:

Christmas has arrived early for Wall Street in the early days of the Donald Trump era.
A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the campaign trail is now putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker’s dream.

Former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin has been seen at Trump Tower amid rumors that he’s the leading candidate for Treasury secretary. Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross appears headed to the Commerce Department. Steve Bannon, another Goldman alum, will work steps from the Oval Office. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon remains a possibility as Treasury secretary and will serve as an outside adviser if he doesn't get the job.
It’s a restoration of Wall Street power — and a potential flip in the way the industry is regulated — perhaps unparalleled in American history.

3.  Remember how Trump swore not to touch Medicare, the federal health care funding program for the over-65 population?  Well, things have changed, what with the election, and now it will be "modernized:"

There’s a lot that you should know about the Republican Medicare plan, a plan that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) hopes to enact shortly after President-elect Donald Trump takes office, but the entirety of it can be summarized in just one sentence.

Republicans want to charge seniors a lot more for inferior health coverage.

Given that voting for Trump was positively correlated with age, that's an interesting choice.  Note, also, that Medicare is not the only program funding the health care needs of the elderly.  Medicaid, the system which currently funds health care for the poorest of the poor, also funds a considerable chunk of long-term nursing care for the elderly.  The Republicans plan to suffocate it over time:

It is hard to overstate the importance of Medicaid, which insures 77 million people, pays for more than half of all births in some states, covers about two-thirds of nursing home residents and provides treatment for many people addicted to opioids. Spending on Medicaid, by the federal government and states combined, exceeds $500 billion a year.

Of the 20 million people who have gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act, officials estimate, 12 million are insured by Medicaid — with few of the problems that have plagued the new insurance exchanges, or marketplaces.

But change is coming. In his campaign manifesto, Mr. Trump said Congress must repeal the Affordable Care Act and give each state a lump sum of federal money — a block grant — for Medicaid. Congress passed legislation in January to repeal the health law and roll back its Medicaid expansion. Mr. Obama vetoed the measure, but Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin has vowed to put similar legislation on a Republican president’s desk.

Bolds are mine.

Block grants are wonderful devices for cutting funding, if they are not adjusted for inflation or population changes over time.  If the Republicans are successful in making such cuts, Trump-supporters, among others, may have to start saving a lot of money for grandma's nursing home expenses (which averaged almost 7000 dollars a month in 2016).

4.  Trump campaigned on huge tax cuts for the middle class, for the "forgotten men and women of this country."  Reality is more complicated:

But Trump's plan does the opposite, says Lily Batchelder, a law professor at New York University and visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
"If you look at the most wealthy, the top 1 percent would get about half of the benefits of his tax cuts, and a millionaire, for example, would get an average tax cut of $317,000," she says.

And not all middle class Trump voters would see their taxes drop:

Lily Batchelder, a law professor at NYU and visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center, says Donald Trump's plan would boost taxes for many families, with some of the largest increases applying to single-parent families "because of the repeal of the head of household filing status and personal exemptions."

• A single parent with $75,000 in earnings, two school-age children and no child care costs would face a tax increase of around $2,440.
• A single parent with $50,000 in earnings, three school-age children and no child care costs would also face a tax increase of around $1,188.
• A married couple with $50,000 in earnings, two school-age children and no child care costs would face a tax increase of about $150.
• Other married couples would get almost no benefit.

Hmm.  Wonder if any of that was intended?  After all, the Christianists who voted for Trump don't like families led by single mothers, though of course these rules also apply to single fathers and widowed individuals, whatever their sex.
-----------

* This post concentrates on proposed changes which are not going to help Trump supporters with moderate incomes.  The super-rich are naturally going to have a bonanza.

And The Rest Of The World? How Will It Survive Trumpism?

This is quite a fascinating interview about Trump's possible foreign policy.  Try to find your jaw from the floor afterwards.  Note, also, the statement made by the former Swedish prime minister, Carl Bildt, around ten minutes and 34 seconds into the interview.

He states that if Trump's foreign policy will be based on the three themes he has persistently talked about over the years,  it would mean the end of the West as we know it.

He then elaborates on that apocalyptic vision.  The interviewer summarizes that elaboration as stating that Trump's theoretical platform on foreign policy would make the West poorer, more likely to be at war, and it would also reduce freedom, democracy and human rights in the world.

I recommend listening to the whole discussion, because the participants actually know the field, and because there is something eerie about hearing their calm and careful pronouncements about this mess we are now in.