|Click to hear WINTER LADY|
Monday, November 14, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
|Click to hear what else ? Aquarius by the Fifth Dimension.|
Besides the above, the Post Election Chill-Out consists of :
Elvis Costello's What's So Funny About Peace Love and Understanding
The Youngbloods' Get Together
Cat Stevens' Peace Train
The O'Jay's Love Train
and Carlos Santana's Stone Flower.
Stay chilled-out, my friend.
THE FIRST, from George Friedman, formerly of STRATFOR, is entitled, President Elect Donald Trump.
When Clinton made her extraordinary speech about Trump’s basket of “deplorables,” she was expressing the chasm of contempt that had opened up within the Democratic Party between the educated and the working class. She said there were two baskets. In one was the homophobic, xenophobic misogynists. In the other basket were the poor who had been left behind. It was not clear that this second basket was deplorable, but those in it were certainly not her major concern. Clinton made the “deplorables” statement to make it clear that not only was Trump unacceptable, but his followers were too. Clearly, she didn’t think she needed their votes. But she did need to reinforce her base’s sense of fighting the good fight against evil and failure..
Clinton’s statement about Trump’s followers struck me at the time, and still does, as amazing. She was then a few points ahead of Trump, which meant that nearly half of the country supported him. By implication, she was saying that half the country is deplorable. Her statement was not only contemptuous, but showed her to be a terrible politician. To win the election, she needed to hold all of her supporters, plus take away some of Trump’s. The deplorable statement drove many off instead.
It was not only bad politics. It also represents a core internal problem. The elite of the United States – and all countries have and need elites – has become profoundly self-enclosed. This is similar to the situation in the U.K. when the elite was enraged at the Brexit referendum result, and hurled epithets at the narrow majority that voted for Brexit, calling them uneducated, incapable of understanding the issues and so on.THE SECOND is David Bahnsen's post, Wow. Just Wow. The Day After, What it All Means, and Where We Go from Here.
With all due respect to my friends on the left, the episodic cases of derangement they have waged against perfectly reasonable and credible GOP conservative leaders over the years are a huge reason why Trump won. You cannot call every single person you disagree with on perfectly reasonable issues a racist, sexist, and homophobe, and them expect people to take you seriously when a real demagogue enters the fray. The left’s hysteria and lack of charity with those they disagree with for years has led to a credibility deficit. I find Trump’s behavior towards women and comments about Hispanics revolting, but when I see the left say to choose love not hate (in opposing Trump), I think they fail to see how utterly hateful they have been towards God-fearing non-hateful sincere Americans for years. I don’t agree with the punishment, but the reality is that too many middle Americans were tired of being insulted so unfairly, and took it out on the other side by voting Trump. Legitimate disagreements need to be allowed without such hateful rhetoric from the left. Trump should not be absolved of his rhetoric, and I have no intention of letting him off the hook into his Presidency either, but leftist derangement gave us Trump. The boy (and girl) cried wolf too many times...
The masterpiece book, Coming Apart, by Charles Murray, described a sociological phenomena that came to fruition in the electoral realm last night. These are the areas in which all of my attentions are focused – how the policy prescriptions and ideas we believe in as conservatives can be applied to the segments of society most suffering, so as to create a free and virtuous society. I fear Trump has bitten off more than he or anyone can chew, because he has falsely claimed that white working America is suffering because of bad trade deals, as opposed to real cultural milieu. Truth be told, the right needs to listen to the plight of working America and offer solutions; and those solutions can not be nationalistic promises of protectionist nonsense. There is a lot more to say here...
This brings me to my final point. There are three major divisions now going on in our country that are the defining situations of this age. First and foremost, rural America vs. urban America, or that sociological/cultural divide described in point seven. Secondly, the civil war in the left, which my liberal friends do not yet know how massive it is about to become. That radical progressive wing of Warren and Sanders is going to go to war with center-left moderates, and it is going to be nasty. And then the one which I believe will dictate so much of the future of American political life: The civil war in the right – the battle between populist-nationalists and idea-driven conservatives. I am well aware of the fact that Trump’s win grants appearance that the former is winning over the latter. I am not so sure. The “across country” wave of ideological conservatives who won by much larger margins tells a different story. I am convinced of this: The winner of this battle will determine the fate of conservatism in this generation. The latter must, must, must defeat the former.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
...is Larry Sabato's in THE CRYSTAL BALL, appropriately entitled, MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MAXIMA CULPA.
Well, what can we say -- we blew it.
We thought the signs pointed to Hillary Clinton winning the White House. We thought that even if she lost Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, her Midwestern “firewall” of states that not only had voted for Barack Obama twice, but hadn’t voted for a Republican since the 1980s, would hold for her. It didn’t -- Trump blew a hole in what we dubbed “Fortress Obama.” Remarkably, this all happened while Clinton was winning Virginia by a larger margin than Obama did in 2012 and almost certainly winning the national popular vote.
is Joel Kotkin's at Newgeography.com, entitled "The Improbable Demographics Behind Donald Trump's Improbable Victory"
Class has been a bigger factor in this election than in any election since the New Deal era. Trump’s insurgency rode largely on middle- and working-class fears about globalization, immigration and the cultural arrogance of the “progressive” cultural elite. This is something Bill Clinton understandsbetter than his wife.
Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
Many of these voters were once Democrats, and feel they have been betrayed. And they include a large swath of the middle class, whose fury explains much of what happened tonight. Trump has connected better with these voters than Romney, who won those making between $50,000 and $90,000 by a narrow 52 percent margin. Early analysis of this year’s election shows Trump doing better among these kind of voters.
At the same time, however, affluent voters — those making $100,000 and above — seem to have tilted over to the Democrats this year. This is the first time the “rich” have gone against the GOP since the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Obama did better among the wealthy, winning eight of the 10 richest counties in 2012. In virtually all these counties, Clinton did even better.
What does this mean for America’s traditional middle class, whose numbers have been fading for a generation? Long the majority, notes Pew, they are no longer, outnumbered by the lower and upper classes combined. Yet like the Anglo population, in this election what’s left of America’s middle class has shown itself not ready to face the sunset.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
is the subject of Gil Troy's fascinating and insightful POLITICO piece from June 2016, How an Outsider President Killed a Party.
Many have called Donald Trump’s unexpected takeover of a major political party unprecedented; but it’s not. A similar scenario unfolded in 1848, when General Zachary Taylor, a roughhewn career soldier who had never even voted in a presidential election, conquered the Whig Party.
A look back at what happened that year is eye-opening—and offers warnings for those on both sides of the aisle. Democrats quick to dismiss Trump should beware: Taylor parlayed his outsider appeal to defeat Lewis Cass, an experienced former Cabinet secretary and senator. But Republicans should beware, too: Taylor is often ranked as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history—and, more seriously, the Whig Party never recovered from his victory. In fact, just a few years after Taylor was elected under the Whig banner, the party dissolved—undermined by the divisions that caused Taylor’s nomination in the first place, and also by the loss of faith that followed it.