I am not a big fan of Kimberley Strassel, who writes the "Potomac Watch" column for The Wall Street Journal. Her politics are definitely not my politics!
I will say, though, that Strassel wrote a column on January 18, 2024, that did seem to be on target in its diagnosis of how Americans are feeling. She was writing, of course, at the start of what everyone knew would be a consequential election year, and her column was titled, "The Them-vs.-Us Election." The Journal's paywall permitting, you can click that link to read it online. Just in case The Journal's paywall does not permit you to click on through to Strassel's column, I am reproducing the entire column at the end of this blog posting.
Strassel's column begins with Strassel quoting Jamie Dimon, who is the Chairperson of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a global financial services firm with assets of $3.2 trillion. Dimon is definitely part of that "billionaire class" I have mentioned a time or two, which doesn't mean that his analysis of our existing economic, social, and political situation should be disregarded - or is necessarily wrong. Dimon's comment, as reproduced in the Strassel column, is as follows:
The Democrats have done a pretty good job with the ‘deplorables’ hugging on to their bibles, and their beer and their guns. I mean, really? Could we just stop that stuff, and actually grow up, and treat other people with respect and listen to them a little bit?”
It is my opinion that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race to Donald Trump in significant part because she categorized as "deplorable" all those voters who found some merit in what Trump was saying. Her contempt for people with whom she had political disagreements (which she trumpted to the skies) was one very good reason to vote against her. The Strassel column, essentially, with support from Dimon, is making the point that if "the Democrats" want to make the same pitch, again, they are likely to experience the same result.
As just indicated, I agree with that analysis.
What captured my attention in the Strassel column, however, was not Dimon's commentary, which is where Strassel began. It was the last line of her column that made me want to write down my reaction, in today's blog post. Here is how Strassel wraps up her January "Them-vs.-Us" column:
The polling suggests that most Americans are looking for a leader who promises to return power to the people. They are looking for a freedom agenda. Anyone?
Looking for a leader? Strassel may be right; that may be what Americans are looking for, and if they are, Donald Trump has some advantage. He is definitely a "leader," in the sense that he refuses to conform to any commonly-accepted standard of decent behavior. He is a "leader." He will forge out ahead, and go his own way.
The fact is, we are woefully mistaken if we start believing that our political system is supposed to help us select a "leader." If we understand, and truly believe in, "self-government," we know that we are not looking for someone to "lead" us - someone who will tell us what we should be thinking, and what we should be doing. We're looking for someone who can "represent" us, so that what the majority of the people would like to accomplish will be accomplished. "Leaders" will almost always betray our expectations. Self-government isn't about finding a "leader." It's about getting engaged, ourselves, in the practice of politics.
Self-government means a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Abraham Lincoln said that.
If you don't get involved yourself, so the government is "by" the people, then some so-called "leader" is going to steal your self-government away, right from underneath your nose.
I said that!
oooOOOooo
The Them-vs.-Us Election
Kimberley A. Strassel
Most Americans wouldn’t consider a banking titan a spokesman for the common man. But give JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon credit for putting his pinkie finger on the phenomenon—the divide—that best explains today’s unsettled political environment.
In an interview Wednesday with CNBC, Mr. Dimon took issue with a disconnected liberal elite that scorns “MAGA” voters. “The Democrats have done a pretty good job with the ‘deplorables’ hugging on to their bibles, and their beer and their guns. I mean, really? Could we just stop that stuff, and actually grow up, and treat other people with respect and listen to them a little bit?”
The powerful, the intellectual and the lazy have long said that the “divide” in this country is between rich and poor. They divvy up Americans along traditional lines related to wealth—college, no college, white-collar, blue-collar, income—then layer on other demographics. This framing has given us the “diploma divide” and the “new suburban voter” and “Hillbilly Elegy.” It’s sent the political class scrambling to understand Donald Trump’s “forgotten man”—again, defined economically.
That framing fails to account for the country’s unsettled electorate. There’s a better description of the shifts both between and within the parties, a split that better explains changing voter demographics and growing populist sentiments. It’s the chasm between a disconnected elite and average Americans. This is becoming a them-vs.-us electorate and election. Political candidates, take heed.
This gulf is described by unique new polling from Scott Rasmussen’s RMG Research, conducted for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Mr. Rasmussen says that for more than a year he’d been intrigued by consistent outlier data from a subset of Americans, which he later defined as those with a postgraduate degree, earning more than $150,000 a year, and living in a high-density area. Mr. Rasmussen in the fall conducted two surveys of these “elites” and compared their views to everyone else.
Talk about out of touch. Among the elite, 74% say their finances are getting better, compared with 20% of the rest of voters. (The share is 88% among elites who are Ivy League graduates.) The elite give President Biden an 84% approval rating, compared with 40% from non-elites. And their complete faith in fellow elites extends beyond Mr. Biden. Large majorities of them have a favorable view of university professors (89%), journalists (79%), lawyers and union leaders (78%) and even members of Congress (67%). Two-thirds say they’d prefer a candidate who said teachers and educational professionals, not parents, should decide what children are taught.
More striking is the elite view on bedrock American principles, central to the biggest political fights of today. Nearly 50% of elites believe the U.S. provides “too much individual freedom”—compared with nearly 60% of voters who believe there is too much “government control.” Seventy-seven percent of elites support “strict rationing of gas, meat, and electricity” to fight climate change, vs. 28% of everyone else. More than two-thirds of elite Ivy graduates favor banning things like gasoline-powered cars and stoves and inessential air travel in the name of the environment. More than 70% of average voters say they’d be unwilling to pay more than $100 a year in taxes or costs for climate—compared with 70% of elites who said they’d pay from $250 up to “whatever it takes.”
This framing explains today’s politics better. While this elite is small, its members are prominent in every major institution of American power, from media to universities to government to Wall Street, and have become more intent on imposing their agenda from above. Many American voters feel helplessly under assault from policies that ignore their situation or values.
What unites “rich” and “poor” parents in the revolt against educational failings? A common rejection of disconnected teachers unions and ivory-tower academics. Why are growing numbers of minorities—across all incomes and education levels—rejecting Democrats? They no longer recognize a progressive movement that reflexively espouses that elite view. Why are voters on both sides—including “free market” conservatives—gravitating to politicians who bash “big business” and trade and are increasingly isolationist? They feel the system is rigged by elites that care more about the globe than them. And why the continued appeal of Mr. Trump? The man is a walking promise to stick it to the “establishment” (never mind that most of his party’s establishment has endorsed him).
This lack of trust and cultural divide are no healthier than the simpler rich-poor split, but they’re there. The challenge for Mr. Trump’s GOP opponents as they move past Iowa is to recognize the sense of alienation. That doesn’t mean calling to burn everything down (Vivek Ramaswamy tried that and freaked people out), but it does require a campaign that offers more than vague promises to “strengthen the cause of freedom” or run on “your issues.” The polling suggests that most Americans are looking for a leader who promises to return power to the people. They are looking for a freedom agenda. Anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!