The Trump Phenomenon

[Riaz Haq]

Donald Trump, a political novice, has stunned the world with a string of successes in Republican primaries to become the leading candidate for the GOP (Grand Old Party, aka Republican Party) nomination for US President in 2016. The fear of a hostile takeover of the GOP by Trump has sent the party establishment into panic mode. What are the factors behind this development? Who are Donald Trump's supporters? What is motivating their anger and their disdain of the Republican party leadership? Let's try and answer these questions:



1. Changing Demographics and Economy:

When I first arrived in the United States in late 1970s,  America had very different demographics. It was about 85% white. Most Americans with just a high school diploma enjoyed middle class living standards.  They had good jobs in manufacturing industries like auto and steel. These jobs paid them well enough to buy a decent new home and drive late-model American-made cars.



The US demographics and economy have both changed dramatically in the last four decades. Minorities now account for about 30% of the US population. Low birth rate among whites and increasing immigration have both contributed to this reality. Meanwhile, unrelenting forces of globalization and continuing creative destruction have replaced the bulk of auto and steel manufacturing industries with new, high-tech industries. The high-tech sector in the United States is booming. It's creating a lot of new jobs. But most of these new jobs require at least a college degree and higher level skills, the kind of skills many middle-aged non-college-educated white Americans do not have.

2. Social Impact of Changes:

A combination economic and demographic changes has taken its greatest toll on middle-aged white Americans without college education. They are disillusioned and angry. And they are lashing out at the "establishment" politicians on both ends of the political spectrum, but mainly on the GOP side. Donald Trump has successfully exploited this anger by blaming immigrants, religious minorities and other nations for their problems.

In a paper titled "Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic ..." published last year, Princeton economists Anne Case and  Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton have shown that over the last 15 years, white middle-aged Americans have been dying at unusually high rates. Most of those deaths have been concentrated among people with only a high-school diploma, or less.

Polls say that these older, less-educated whites form the core pf support for Donald Trump.

Source: New York Times

3. Voting Patterns By Race: 

Will Trump Become the Next President? It appears unlikely given his support base.  Here's why: John McCain and  Mitt Romney, the last two Republican candidates since 2008, won the majority of white votes but failed to win the general election. Each of them got 60% of the 70% white votes that add up to 42% of the overall electorate. In addition, each of them got only 6% of Black votes and about 26% of the Asian and Hispanic votes that prevented them from gaining the overall majority needed to win. Trump's campaign rhetoric has managed to anger all minority groups, particularly Mexicans and Muslims. He will get even fewer minority votes than McCain and Romney polled in the last two general elections.

Viewpoint From Overseas host Faraz Darvesh discusses the Trump Phenomenon with panelists Misbah Azam and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com).

https://vimeo.com/150060544


Pakistan VIP Culture's Young Victim; Trump's Muslim Ban; PTI's Lodh... from WBT Productions on Vimeo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khBuOiCt9VQ




http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3jp0z6_pakistan-vip-culture-s-you...


Pakistan VIP Culture's Young Victim; Trump's... by ViewpointFromOverseas


Summary: 

The Trump phenomenon appears to be linked to the changing US economy that has left many middle-aged non-college-educated white Americans behind. Like many other demagogues before him, Donald J. Trump is exploiting their deep dis-satisfaction and rising anger by blaming minorities and immigrants for their problems. Even if Trump wins the Republican nomination, the chances of his success in 2016 general elections are remote.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Trump's Muslim Ban

Tarek Fatah Vs Riaz Haq Debate

Minorities Are Majority in Silicon Valley

Obama's Historic Win

[Riaz Haq]

#Trump phenomenon reflects bigotry of #Republican base promoted by its leaders. Why is it a surprise to #GOP now? http://nyti.ms/1pbgnKY 

Seriously, Republican political strategy has been exploiting racial antagonism, getting working-class whites to despise government because it dares to help Those People, for almost half a century. So it’s amazing to see the party’s elite utterly astonished by the success of a candidate who is just saying outright what they have consistently tried to convey with dog whistles.

What I find even more amazing, however, are the Republican establishment’s delusions about what its own voters are for. You see, all indications are that the party elite imagines that base voters share its own faith in conservative principles, when that not only isn’t true, it never has been.

Here’s an example: Last summer, back when Mr. Trump was just beginning his rise, he promised not to cut Social Security, and insiders like William Kristol gleefully declared that he was “willing to lose the primary to win the general.” In reality, however, Republican voters don’t at all share the elite’s enthusiasm for entitlement cuts — remember, George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security ran aground in the face of disapproval from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Yet the Republican establishment still seems unable to understand that hardly any of its own voters, let alone the voters it would need to win in the general election, are committed to free-market, small-government ideology. Indeed, although Marco Rubio — the establishment’s last hope — has finally started to go after the front-runner, so far his attack seems to rest almost entirely on questioning the coiffed one’s ideological purity. Why does he imagine that voters care?

Oh, and the G.O.P. establishment was also sure that Mr. Trump would pay a heavy price for asserting that we were misled into Iraq — evidently unaware just how widespread that (correct) belief is among Americans of all political persuasions.

So what’s the source of this obliviousness? The answer, I’d suggest, is that in recent years — and, in fact, for the past couple of decades — becoming a conservative activist has actually been a low-risk, comfortable career choice. Most Republican officeholders hold safe seats, which they can count on keeping if they are sufficiently orthodox. Moreover, if they should stumble, they can fall back on “wingnut welfare,” the array of positions at right-wing media organizations, think tanks and so on that are always there for loyal spear carriers.

And loyalty is almost the only thing that matters. Does an economist at a right-wing think tank have a remarkable record of embarrassing mistakes? Does a pundit have an almost surreal history of bad calls? No matter, as long as they hew to the orthodox line.

There is, by the way, nothing comparable on the Democratic side. Of course there’s an establishment, but it’s much more diffuse, much less lavishly funded, much less insistent on orthodoxy and forgiving of loyal incompetence.

But back to the hermetic world of the Republican elite: This world has, as I said, existed for decades. The result is an establishment comprising apparatchiks, men (mainly) who have spent their entire professional lives in an environment where repeating approved orthodoxy guarantees an easy life, while any deviation from that orthodoxy means excommunication. They know that people outside their party disagree, but that doesn’t matter much for their careers.

Now, however, they face the reality that most voters inside their party don’t agree with the orthodoxy, either. And all signs are that they still can’t wrap their minds around that fact. They just keep waiting for Donald Trump to suffer the fall from grace that, in their world, always happens to anyone who questions the eternal truth of supply-side economics or the gospel of 9/11. Even now, when it’s almost too late to stop the Trump Express, they still imagine that “But he’s not a true conservative!” is an effective attack.

[Riaz Haq]

Former #CIA director Gen Michael Hayden: #US #Military may refuse to follow #Trump's orders if he becomes president http://wpo.st/eyfH1

 

Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges.

 

Hayden, who also headed the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, made the provocative statement on Friday during an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” Trump, fresh off a string of primary victories, has yet to secure his party’s nomination, but Hayden said the candidate’s rhetoric already raises troubling questions.

 

“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” Hayden said during the interview with Maher.

 

[Riaz Haq]

Donald #Trump defends size of his penis at #GOP presidential debate in #Michigan USA @CNNPolitics http://cnn.it/1RM59G2 

Donald Trump assured American voters Thursday night that despite what Marco Rubio had suggested, there was "no problem" with the size of his hands -- or anything else.

"Look at those hands, are they small hands?" the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination said, raising them for viewers to see. "And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

Rubio in recent days revived a decades-old old insult, mocking Trump for having relatively slight hands.

"He's always calling me Little Marco. And I'll admit he's taller than me. He's like 6'2, which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2," Rubio said in Virginia on Sunday. "And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them."

RELATED: Republican debate: Live updates

The New York billionaire has heard similar comments about his hands or, more precisely, his fingers, for years.

As Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter recalled online last year: "Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a 'short-fingered vulgarian' in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago."

[Riaz Haq]

Donald #Trump: #US needs to stay in #Afghanistan to protect #Pakistan's nuclear weapons. #India http://toi.in/Q5edaa via @timesofindia

he US needs to stay in Afghanistan because its immediate neighbour Pakistan has nuclear weapons which have to be protected, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has said.
"I think you have to stay in Afghanistan for a while, because of the fact that you are right next to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and we have to protect that. Nuclear weapons change the game," he said.
Trump was responding to a question on Afghanistan during the Republican presidential debate on Thursday.
Last year, Trump had called Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world. In an interview, he had indicated that Pakistan needs to be denuclearise.


"You have to get India involved. India's the check to Pakistan," he said in a radio address in September last year when asked what he would do if Pakistan "the most dangerous country in the world other than Iran" became unstable.
"They (India) have their own nukes and have a very powerful army. They seem to be the real check... I think we have to deal very closely with India to deal with it (Pakistan)," Trump had said, setting off intense chatter among Pakistani experts whose approach to Islamabad's recklessness so far has been one of caution and discretion.
US concerned over Pak's growing nuclear weapons: Pentagon
The US is concerned over Pakistan's fast-expanding stockpile of nuclear weapons which combined with its evolving doctrine increases the risk of an "accident", Pentagon's top spy master said on Wednesday.
"Pakistan's nuclear stockpile continues to grow. We are concerned that this growth, as well as the evolving doctrine associated with tactical nuclear weapons, increases the risk of an incident or accident," Lt Gen Vincent Stewart, director of Defence Intelligence Agency had told lawmakers on Wednesday during a Congressional hearing.

"Islamabad continues to take steps to improve its nuclear security, and is aware of the threat presented by extremists to its programme," Stewart said during his testimony before the house armed services committee on worldwide threats.
Pakistan will face internal security threats from militant, sectarian and separatist groups this year, he said, adding that ISIS in Khorasan and al-Qaida in the Indian subcontinent will also remain significant security concerns for Islamabad.
Pak minister rules out rollback of nuke programme
Pakistan's finance minister on Thursday said that his country will never roll back its nuclear programme despite financial hardship and threat of mounting external debt

Ishaq Dar was briefing the Senate, the upper house of parliament, on the country's economy.
"We did not start this (nuclear) programme to roll it back. This is a programme of our security, and it is a national responsibility to protect it. All political parties of Pakistan share the ownership of our nuclear programme," he said.
"Even if our debts swell to USD 100 billion or USD 100 trillion, we will not roll back our nuclear

[Riaz Haq]

#Trump's polices aren't anathema to #America's mainstream but uncomfortable reflection of it. #racism http://interc.pt/1QXHkye by @ggreenwald

In some instances, their claim is plausible: There is at least genuine embarrassment if not revulsion even among America’s political class over Trump’s proposed mass deportation of 11 million human beings, banning of all Muslims from entering the country, and new laws to enable him to more easily sue (and thus destroy) media outlets that “falsely” criticize him. And his signature personality brew of deep-seated insecurities, vindictive narcissism, channeling of the darkest impulses, and gaudy, petty boasting is indeed uniquely grotesque.

But in many cases, probably most, the flamboyant denunciations of Trump by establishment figures make no sense except as self-aggrandizing pretense, because those condemning him have long tolerated if not outright advocated very similar ideas, albeit with less rhetorical candor. Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue advocating morally monstrous positions, but in most cases where elite outrage is being vented, he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid, not some radical departure from it. He’s their id. What establishment mavens most resent is not what Trump is, does, or says, but what he reflects: the unmistakable, undeniable signs of late-stage imperial collapse, along with the resentments and hatreds they have long deliberately and self-servingly stoked but which are now raging out of their control.

Two of the most recent, widely discussed anti-Trump outrage rituals — one from Wednesday and the other from last night’s Fox News debate — demonstrate the sham at the heart of the establishment display of horror. This week, American political and media figures from across the spectrum stood and applauded a tawdry cast of neocons and other assorted warmongers who are responsible for grave war crimes, torture, kidnappings, due process-free indefinite imprisonment, and the worst political crime of this generation: the attack on and destruction of Iraq.

These five dozen or so extremists (calling themselves “members of the Republican national security community”) were the toast of the town because they published an “open letter” denouncing Trump on the ground that his “own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.” This was one of their examples:

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

Most decent human beings, by definition, would express this sentiment without including the qualifying word “expansive.” Even Ronald Reagan, whom virtually all the signatories claim to idolize, advocated for and signed a treaty in 1988 that stated that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever … may be invoked as a justification of torture” and that “each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law.” The taboo is on “all acts of torture,” not its “expansive use” — whatever that means.

But the group signing this anti-Trump letter can’t pretend to find an embrace of torture itself to be “inexcusable” because most of them implemented torture policies while in government or vocally advocated for them. So instead, they invoke the Goldilocks Theory of Torture: We believe in torture up to exactly the right point, while Trump is disgraceful because he wants to go beyond that; he believes in “the expansive use of torture.” The same dynamic drove yesterday’s widely cheered speech by Mitt Romney, where the two-time failed GOP candidate denounced Trump for advocating torture while literally ignoring his own clear pro-torture viewpoints.

[Riaz Haq]

Here's an excerpt from The Salon on Bill Buckley, the father of Republican Conservatism:

In 1957, Buckley wrote National Review’s most infamous editorial, entitled “Why the South Must Prevail.” Is the white community in the South, he asked, “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?” His answer was crystal clear: “The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because for the time being, it is the advanced race.” Buckley cited unfounded statistics demonstrating the superiority of white over black, and concluded that, “it is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” He added definitively: “the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/07/william_f_buckley_and_national_revi...

[Riaz Haq]

Sartaj Aziz: "A #Trump presidency doesn't worry #Pakistan" #MuslimBan #Trump2016 #GOP @CNNPolitics http://cnn.it/1pcQdb6 

Pakistan, a U.S. ally and majority-Muslim country, is not overly concerned about the possibility of Donald Trump occupying the White House or his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, according to a top official.

"What you do in the campaign doesn't mean that it becomes policy," said Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan's adviser to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs, in an exclusive interview with CNN.

Trump's plan to block Muslims from the United States was "not well-received," according to Aziz. But Pakistan, he said, views America as a multicultural society that is too rooted in the ideals of tolerance for such a ban to ever be enacted.

"The strength of these values in America is very strong," said Aziz. "Even if, you know, for political reasons or short-term popularity somebody espouses these ideas to appeal to one segment of the population, the broad spectrum of America ... will not buy this," said Aziz.

For the latest news and political buzz get the CNN Politics Nightcap | Sign up

Aziz spoke to CNN on Tuesday while in Washington for meeting with U.S. officials and a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.

At the CFR event, he said that peace negotiations between the Afghan government and Taliban could begin in the coming week or two.

As part of the peace process, the United States, China and Pakistan had facilitated talks between the Afghan government and Taliban in July, but further talks were derailed by news of the death of Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Aziz said that some progress had been made by preparing the terms of reference for the talks and the road map for moving forward, but he cautioned that the success of the talks hinges upon the situation on the ground remaining stable. At this point, it's not clear that there will be more success in moving forward with talks than there has been in previous months.

Aziz also acknowledged that the Taliban leadership is inside Pakistan, giving leverage to his government to pressure them to come to the table.

"We have some influence in them because their leadership is in Pakistan," he said. They get some medical facilities. Their families are here."

Mexican President: Donald Trump damaging U.S.-Mexico relations

Pakistan wants U.S. to stay in Afghanistan
Trump, for his part, spoke on Pakistan in the Fox News debate on Thursday night, citing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal as the reason for the United States to stay in Afghanistan.

"I think you have to stay in Afghanistan for a while, because of the fact that you're right next to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and we have to protect that," said Trump. "Nuclear weapons change the game."

The United States announced a delay in withdrawing from Afghanistan in October after months of discussions with Afghanistan's president, Ashraf Ghani, and the nation's chief executive officer, Abdullah Abdullah.

The new plan keeps 9,800 troops in Afghanistan until late 2016. That force will then draw down to 5,500 U.S. military personnel, more than five times the number of troops previously set to remain in the country at the start of 2017.

Aziz told CNN that the United States should stay in Afghanistan but not because of his country's nuclear weapons.

"In our view, a sudden withdrawal would not be advisable," Aziz said.

Some 195,000 Afghan troops have been trained by the U.S. military, but Aziz cited the country's lack of an air force to support ground forces in operations against the Taliban as a leading reason for U.S. forces to stay in the country.

[Riaz Haq]

#Trump promoting Halal Steak on Prime Time TV? #TrumpSteaks http://blog.shahed.com/post/140742068436/trump-promotes-halal-steak... …

It turns out Trump put out meat provided by local wholesale meat supplier Bush Brothers who source their beef from Creekstone Farms, one of the nation’s leading producers of high-quality beef (the best 1%, which would be appropriate for Trump’s brand). But aside from being premium beef, Creekstone Farms beef (much to the delight of Muslim foodies everywhere) is certified Halal!

[Riaz Haq]

#Obama to #Republicans: You are to blame for the rise of Donald #Trump. #Bigotry #Islamophobia #GOP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-donald-trump_us_56e1a585e... … via HuffPost Politics

 

"I don't think that I was the one to prompt questions about my birth certificate, for example," the president added. "I don't remember saying, 'Hey, why don't you ask me about that?' or 'Why don't you question whether I'm American, or whether I'm loyal or whether I have America's best interests at heart?' ... So what you're seeing within the Republican Party is, to some degree, all of those efforts over a course of time creating an environment where somebody like a Donald Trump can thrive."

[Riaz Haq]

Inclination for Authoritarianism: The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a #Trump Supporter. #GOP http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-au... …

 

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

 

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

Not all authoritarians are Republicans by any means; in national surveys since 1992, many authoritarians have also self-identified as independents and Democrats. And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But Hetherington has also found, based on 14 years of polling, that authoritarians have steadily moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party over time. He hypothesizes that the trend began decades ago, as Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality. In my poll results, authoritarianism was not a statistically significant factor in the Democratic primary race, at least not so far, but it does appear to be playing an important role on the Republican side. Indeed, 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters I surveyed score in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale—more than twice as many as Democratic voters.

 

Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support because they simply don’t include questions about authoritarianism in their polls. In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-au...