[tcoppi]

This article is massive clickbait, but I'll comment anyway.

Trump and Sanders are manifestations of a long-term trend that has been building at least since the 2008 Financial Crisis. People are dissatisfied with the options they are presented politically, and economic participation is at historically low levels. We have never been more prosperous, but at the same time that prosperity and wealth gains are not only not very evenly distributed(they never really were), but large swaths of society are completely left out of them. In the early half of the century, it was a democratizing effect that everyone was drinking a 10c glass of Coke. This is just one example, you can also see it with iPhoneistas vs cheap Android phones, etc. etc. Now the hip drinks are craft beers and fine wines, and a former factory worker forced to work menial part time jobs is looked down upon for drinking what he can afford, Bud lite and coke. There are major class shiftings and reorganizations going on, and people living in and near large prosperous cities have largely been immune and isolated from it.

We dismiss and ignore their rise at our own peril.

[chao-]

>Now the hip drinks are craft beers and fine wines, and a former factory worker forced to work menial part time jobs is looked down upon for drinking what he can afford, Bud lite and coke.

Two related articles that may inform your discussions of this topic:

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...

http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites...

For context, and lest anyone think I'm taking a cheap shot at liberalism or progressivism, I definitely see myself in the first article. Particularly in my teens and early twenties, I was about as smug as they came. Then I went meta-smug by posing as an angry libertarian, and was utterly insufferable. These days, I think and feel much the same, I just don't go out of my way to socially advertise it (or I put more effort into not making others feel small?).

>There are major class shiftings and reorganizations going on, and people living in and near large prosperous cities have largely been immune and isolated from it.

One place a prosperous urbanite might bump into this shift is when a city winds up with a commuter police force due in part to high rent.

[tcoppi]

Those are both good articles that express much better than I the trends I am seeing. Particularly, in the Vox article, when it talks about G.W. Bush being a "dumb hick", you can see shades of this with Trump and his rhetoric today.

[phantarch]

Thank you for sharing these articles. The first one from vox really feels like it underlines not only the smugness that's crept into liberalism, but also its tone is exasperated and at times even pleading.

It feels like a reflection of the mood of our general political discussion, where people are pissed off with the echo chamber and not getting the empathy that's needed from either direction to make livable decisions. This feels like one of those situations where human nature hasn't changed, but the internet has fundamentally altered social dynamics.

[mc32]

It goes back to at least the descent from peak manufacturing back in the late 70s. In the eighties it was inconographied by the sledgehammer destruction of imported cars.

That was the working class shouting out loud, hey, we're losing our jobs in the name of globalization, but we're not seeing benefits only turmoil (and in retrospect cheap consumerization of goods).

So, by and large, the blue collar working class have shouldered the repercussions from the gains enjoyed by the upper middle class and the wealthy -gains made possible through globalization.

In addition to that working class whites feel that they have shouldered most of the cost of equalization of justice and economics. That's to say when society addresses past injustices its remedy is not equally shared by the upper middle class and the wealthy. In other words when the seriously aggrieved are given a chance at success it's not at the cost to upper middle classers or the wealthy but mostly the working class.

It's not that they are bigots and are racists and begrudge success of classes historically disadvantaged, it's that the upper middle class and wealthy never contribute to the cost of justice.

I think after decades of pandering from Repubs and Dems who just patronize them they have had it and are asking for their money back. I think this is what you see.

[CurtHagenlocher]

> a long-term trend that has been building at least since the 2008 Financial Crisis

A good chunk of Trump voters didn't really benefit from the "90s boom" either. As a small army of dot-com millionaires were being minted, the Rust Belt continued to rust.

[xbmcuser]

The actual founding was laid even earlier in the Clinton administration people are blaming 2008 crisis for the current anti establishment sentiment are being myopic. The trade deals and removal of banking restrictions supercharged the Us economy and US reaped the benefits for the decade after but that is also the point that wealth started shifting to the top from the middle class and it has kept going on till the middle class has started to revolt. An open world market is good in theory but can really work only if the laws in all countries are the same. Today we get cheap stuff produced from third world countries because those countries do not have the same worker protections etc available. Bush and Republican spending trillions on wars instead of spending that money at home on infrastructure has made things worse.

[eternalban]

> Trump and Sanders are manifestations of a long-term trend ... 2008

8 years is a long-term trend now?

My impression over the past 30+ years being in US (and reading up on history) is that there is a clear downward trend in terms of 'quality' across the board, whether in 'establishment', or 'fringe'. For example, for black radicals we had people like Malcolm X, and then we ended up with Sharpton. Out goes JFK, in comes Billy from Arkansas. Out with Nixon, in with Reagan. If this is a collective bottom-up phenomena, then clearly 'we' are giving ourselves the collective finger.

[tcoppi]

If we're talking about political cycles, then yes that counts as long-term. I agree though this has been going on a lot longer than just since 2008, but 2008 was when I think the tide really started turning.

[bluedevil2k]

That's the enigma in our 2 party election system. Republicans somehow convince "the other 99%" (more realistically, the middle/lower class) to vote AGAINST the economic policies that would benefit them the most (those coming from the Democrats).

[tcoppi]

I suggest you read the two articles posted by chao- to get a better understanding as to why that may be.

[jbmorgado]

> We have never been more prosperous

That's exactly the problem. For the 1st time in recorded history of democratic societies, the sons will live in worst conditions than their parents. This didn't happen even when after major armed conflicts.

1st world has increasing economic output but most people of the new generation also in the 1st world are starting to live and will live their life in worst conditions than their parents.

These are the most favorable grounds possible for revolution.

[dragontamer]

> For the 1st time in recorded history of democratic societies, the sons will live in worst conditions than their parents.

This lie needs to stop being told.

The Greatest Generation was born in the 1915 era, grew up in the "Roaring Twenties", the largest economic boom in the US to that date. When they became of age ~18 (1933), the USA was hit with twin economic disasters:

* The Great Dust Bowl eradicated entire farms across entire states. Forcing many farmers to move to the city to look for labor. When the farmers got to the cities, they found...

* The Great Depression. `nuff said

The "Greatest Generation" wandered around with 20%+ unemployment level for YEARS while "old money" sat comfortably enjoying the benefits of new-fangled technology like air conditioning and ice machines.

When the economy was finally doing well, the USA joins World War 2 and virtually every working male is drafted into the military. If you didn't die in the war period in the 1940s, you came back to 90% tax rates so that the US could pay off their debt. It wasn't until 1950 or so, when the post-war economic boom started to positively affect this generation, when they were well into the age of 35 or older.

-----------------

Yes, the "Greatest Generation" had a crappier life than their parents. And then the "Greatest Generation" set up huge amounts of programs (invented Social Security, Medicare, started paying incredibly for education) to ensure that their children would have better lives than they did.

Come on, basic history people. THINK when these politicians shout words to you. Don't just parrot out their lies.

I mean, cripes. Just look at the literature that was written in the 1930s by the Greatest Generation. "Of Mice and Men" is about vagabonds looking for farm-work. While "Their Eyes were Watching God" is about a woman who was beaten by multiple suitors before being forced to kill the man she loves because a hurricane wiped out a region and a rabid dog have him rabies.

Common in both stories? Hard, hands-on work, and vagabond living. "Casual Homelessness", as these people travel from town-to-town on foot looking for a way of life. Everyone is a nomad and homeless, and not a big deal is given to it.

In contrast, the "Great Gatsby", written one generation earlier in the 1920s is about rich people doing rich things, and is literally about a new rich person not being respected by older richer people. While the main character gets a new house "modestly" and watches across his Long Island lake property at the "actual rich people" and moral bankruptcy of the parties they hold.

[jbmorgado]

And exactly as the article states, there was a revolution exactly at that time because of the effects of the great depression and the lives of those people ended up better than their parents after that same revolution took place.

A revolution doesn't need to be an armed revolution.

[dragontamer]

I care about your ridiculous claim that's being lamented by certain politicians who have nothing better to do than lie at your face.

> For the 1st time in recorded history of democratic societies, the sons will live in worst conditions than their parents

Can people PLEASE stop saying this line? The article notes a cycle, which is closer to my understanding of history. But none of this "first time ever" crap. I swear, every time Marco Rubio said this line I wanted to punch him in the face.

[jbmorgado]

> The article notes a cycle, which is closer to my understanding of history

That's because either your understanding of history, your written comprehension, or both are quite bad actually.

The article notes a cycle that is always corrected with some kind of revolution, armed or not.

The article also notes that in open societies sons never end up living worts than their parents (in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane) because either society functions properly and that is not a issue, or if it doesn't revolution takes place.

[dragontamer]

The article isn't matching my political views, so don't pretend that I agree with what it says. But that's beside the point.

> in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane

You know you're dissing "Their Eyes were Watching God", right? This isn't exactly an unpopular novel.

---------

My point is that the article is actually good on history (although I disagree with how the author interprets history). You however, are nowhere close to historically accurate.