Decades of practice.
I think it’s more likely that Trump’s rise is due to Republican policies, not tactics. For decades now the GOP Establishment has been devoted to supply-side neoliberal economics. It is now becoming increasingly clear to the white working class base that neoliberalism has not delivered and will not deliver the goods – at least, not to them. Trump’s nationalist populism offers them an alternative they can embrace without going over to the Dems.
Easy. They do it by not allowing the slightest bit of critical thought to enter their minds. Which is easy – it’s critical thought that takes effort, after all.
So how is it that Trump, who said:
Is now some champion of the working class? Or white, blue-collar males, anyway.
On most days, I’m with you and happy to dismiss them as people of the land. But that seems too easy. This is, by my estimates, easily a third of the country. Worryingly, perhaps closer to half. And they aren’t all morons.
I personally know of someone who is a Trump supporter. I’ve known the man all my life. He is well educated. An engineer by trade. A masterful chess player. World traveler. He and his wife have been best friends with my mom and dad before I was born. We celebrated holidays together. Shared losses together. We are closer than many families in most respects.
To me, what explains his ‘inexplicable’ support of Donald Trump is that sadly, deep down, he is a racist. Despite the benefit of an education and a demonstrably critical mind, he believes that foreigners and minorities are the ruin of American society. Ironically, while a citizen now, he was an immigrant himself many years ago.
Thus I am forced to question if the explanation for Trump’s popularity can simply be attributed to ignorance alone.
Batman is more of an outsider than Trump, so you’re actually correct. 
Interesting.
Got numbers for these?
Median household income in 2009… ????? Median household income in 2010.......... ???
As to the median income bit … reality is always more than just two numbers.
Full data here. Table H5 possibly most useful. Numbers being quoted are in 2014 equivalent dollars both by davida and following.
Yup. There had been a floor of about $50K from '78 through '92. Then during the Bill Clinton years, a fairly steady increase in median household income to a peak of $57843 as he left office. The next 8 years ran $55 to 57Kish, flat slightly less than how Clinton left it. Recession hit and median household dropped bottoming out at $52605 in 2012 ('09 was $54925 and '10 was $53507 kaylasdad99) and since then recovered partally to $54K +/- $400 in 2013 and 2014.
I do believe that there is dramatic wealth inequality but let’s also note that real median income had a fairly short period of significant growth in recent times … during Bill Clinton’s terms … and is still higher today in 2014 dollars than it was in 1996.
Real median household income is really not so far off from the range it ran in in the after the peaks of the Clinton years and remains better than the pre-Clinton (before NAFTA and all that) long term floor had been.
But there is much more of a sense of insecurity, trepidation, and more fear of the future, especially among many White subgroups, coupled with cynicism and distrust, and a media that is focused on politics as entertainment that sells ad time in a very competitive market for eyeballs.
The average household size is also smaller. It has been dropping pretty steadily. Two income families really throw off the average household income, but if two adults aren’t setting up households as often (or delaying it longer) your numbers will be thrown off.
Yes. I was going to mention Let me Google that for you: “Median household income in 2007 57357”
Yes. And let’s not forget that income inequality increases significantly even when median income doesn’t fall — we want mean or 95- 99-percentile income stats by year to make comparisons.
I agree, but I think it’s also the case that Obama often didn’t even seem to be trying to push a left-wing agenda. Most of his proposals seem to be pre-watered-down to a centrist position before they reached the public/Congress. Not that it mattered; the Republicans rejected them anyway, but it doesn’t look like he was actually trying very hard.
True. There’s an elderly couple who frequently come into the place I worked. They aren’t retired but rather run a travel agency. Anyway, the man of the couple surprised me by proselytizing for Sanders in the primary. I wouldn’t have figured those two to be Democrats, much less Sanders supporters.
Our primary is a week away, although I already have the ballot. Still haven’t decided who to vote for.
Right.
Some of that is able to be seen more easily by way of graphical presentation here.
Of note to me is that median income has gone up even while median income for those with High School education or less has decreased, for college educated stayed flat, and for those with post-graduate education barely budged. How does that happen? More have moved up into higher education groups and fewer are left in the High School or less one is how.
Also there is an illustration of after tax income by quintiles and the top quintile further broken out. Since 1979 to 2010 all group had gone up (this in 2010 dollars) with the lowest quintile increasing 30%. Of course the top 1% increased 202% in that time.
Overall we are all doing much better than those mythic times when America was great. In after tax and income transfer terms the bottom (including those without college education whose pre-tax and transfers incomes have dropped) and the middle is doing much better than before. A very few are just doing much much much better. After taxes and transfers everyone is better off and there is dramatically increasing wealth (and thus power) inequality.
Note also figures 1 and 2 here. Median after tax income (at least through the 2007 data presented there) has gone up for everyone … just much more for the 1% (and within the 1% much much more for the top 0.1%).
To me the bottom line is not income … again, all quintiles are actually doing pretty well here in America, after taxes and income transfers are taken into account … but the increased and increasing wealth and thus power inequality. The 0.1% are the lords and ladies; the rest of the top 10% perhaps the squires; and the rest of us increasingly recognize that we may well cared for peasants, better fed and more highly educated than in decades past, but still peasants of our lords and ladies. Relative lack of power is what I think drives the resentment that drives to Trump for those whose resentment target of choice is minority a, b, and/or c, and to Sanders for those whose preferred target is “Wall Street”, not lack of income.