All the signs indicate that Trump's Alt-Right populism has reached its limits. Trump's constant aggression and lack of civility towards those who criticize him or don't seem to be part of his 2016 base has set a low ceiling to his chances.
Fear-mongering is a weak strategy against a moderate, well-known rival with a 47-year long track record -in addition to a two-term VP stint during the still popular Obama Presidency-.
The coronavirus pandemic has dissipated the doubts about the need for universal, affordable healthcare coverage, including pre-existing conditions such as Covid infections that will continue to spread in another or perhaps two more waves before a vaccine can set an end to the pandemic ordeal.
Most Americans know that the economy's outlook will not be very different with a Biden or Trump's presidency, but healthcare and pandemic management will. And on those accounts Trump is evidently on the wrong side of the events.
Still under the impact of the pandemic, the country is eager for a return to some sense of normalcy and civility.
A growing wave of unrest is pushing back silently against the campaigns for defunding police departments based on blaming the police for the growing violence against black lives and black communities based on charges of "systemic racism" that cancel any possible request for confrontation with actual data.
Scholar Heather McDonald has been for decades publishing such data, which reveals that over 80 percent of black lives are taken by black-on-black crime and -more critically- than most black community members want more and not fewer police to keep them safe from shootings and looting.
The last piece of evidence was provided by the parents of an actual victim of police abuse, Jacob Blake, who denounced publicly the looting and property destruction that destroyed Kenosha, Wisconsin property and businesses
Systematic violence against property across all major cities in the United States is the perfect argument for re-electing the current incumbent.
New York and Chicago are already reeling from looting, violence that challenges the rationalizations and denial of progressive rhetoric and fuel a mass exodus of millennials and tired liberal taxpayers to "law & order" cities.
War on cops is another self-defeating form of cultural wars. Reality will correct those who engage in them harshly.
Millennials are reaching homeownership age, that stage beyond college politics and free-spirited idealism to enter the realities of paying off student debt and family home mortgages. In five more years they will be also paying for their children's education.
Much has been said about the M generation, and most could be wrong or at least outdated. Coming of mortgage age has taken longer -thanks to the many tankings of boomers' roller coaster economy- than the two generations before. But as older millennials hit their 40s, financial responsibility, taxes and jobs become priorities.
The view from this perspective is certainly sobering: record student debt maturing right when the economy rolls down in a likely record recession; low rate-mortgages fueling a binge of homeownership and a forced flight from overtaxed, overpriced and overcrowded coastal "liberal blue" urban centers to affordable and safer "conservative red" small(er) town-America.
This migration will likely have several consequences that should be the basis for realistic assessments instead of rosy or gloomy projections of the past.
Millennials will become more tax-conscious and government-averse
Blue cities will lose population and political and economic power, turning red
Red cities will turn "bluer" in social and cultural politics but will remain "red" in economics
Multicultural happy talk will be replaced by realistic nationalism and protectionism
Left-wing populism might swing to right-wing populism
Progressives used to consider the party of the future as much as conservatives were the party of the past. There is a role-reversal going on already, as small businesses and cities struggle with unintended consequences of protest rallies -so popular in college years- run in their own hard-paid backyards and shops.
Conservatives used to spell "doom and gloom" and fear for the future but might now have to deal with a more positive message for a new generation dealing with debt, poor economy and broken government.
It's time to look to the present with the perspective of a new generation.
For those taking the long view perspective -that of generational changes in voters and workforce- the 2020 elections have a different meaning. Both candidates are over 70 years old -well into retirement age-. Both are white, anglo Saxon men raised in the urban states of the East Coast.
Trump's "base" is a dwindling, less mobile, non-college-educated sample of what was the majority of America around 1950. They have been pictured in countless books since "Hillbilly Elegy"
and in many documentaries like 'American Factory, that explain how China took over jobs and even companies from the Rust Belt during the past 20 years, killing middle-class "union jobs" by way of technological revolution and global supply chains.
The reality is -or shall we better say will be- that the United States has become more diverse in the past 20 years and will become even more multicultural and multi-ethnic in the coming 20.
No matter how much (some) Trump supporters howl "they will not replace us" or wear MAGA hats, their hope for a return to 1950 is as futile as the fixation of equal old-timers in the Left with the politics of the 1970s.
Neither 78-year-old Bernie Sanders nor 74-year-old-Donald Trump will be inactive roles within the next 5 years.
Progressive governors and mayors have left the "blue" states with such heavy levels of taxation, public and student debt that a solid migration of millennials is changing the demographics -and politics of formerly known "red states" such as Utah, Arizona, and Texas.
Some move for increasing costs of living
Pandemics and remote work have made other Millenials more mobile and eager to escape expensive urban decay and stressful levels of social conflict
Progressives can't claim victory either: millennial migrants are turning more conservative as they become financially strapped with student debt and start their own small businesses away from the corporate rat race tracks.
It's time to look at how 2030 or 2040 US will look like rather than imagining that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders' "retro" politics will dictate the future.
The Munk Dialogues and Debates produced a series of high-interest interviews to explore Post-Covid scenarios. Financier Mohamed Al-Erian, foreign affairs expert Fareed Zakaria, "big picture" writer Malcolm Gladwell, economic historian Niall Ferguson, China experts Victor Gao, David Li, and Henry Kissinger produced a variety of valuable insights from different angles.
Mohamed Al-Erian emphasized the long-lasting effect of the pandemic over the global economic system and the re-globalization or reconfiguration of global value chains as a result of the pandemic experience. In Al-Erian's view, the re-globalization will involve nearshoring to reliable partners with higher health and communication standards and reciprocal trust.
Malcolm Gladwell points to a different but critical angle: the key importance of looking to the weakest link in the world and local societies and economies instead of focusing on the "competitive advantages". The weakest links such as healthcare capacity and prevention, poverty, and welfare networks are likely to stay front and center.
Ian Bremmer added a critical insight regarding the relocation of global value chains: "just-in-case" criteria will not be sustainable. Stronger links based on mutual agreements and reliable partnerships will have priority over mere cost-cutting or universal coverage plans.
Fareed Zakaria pointed out the rise of China as a global factor but also with increased pressure and challenges to meet health and trade requirements
Niall Ferguson, Henry Kissinger, Victor Gao, and David Li debated the role of China, with the Chinese defending the strong points and the Brit and American pointing to China's weaknesses.
CNN -the first Cable New Network that covered 24/7- had news around the world, delivered by independent, professional journalists and sources. Those were the days of reporters -not commentators- such as Bernard Shaw and Wolf Blitzer
Even Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War I checked the news in CNN instead of relying on his "Baghdad Bob" because in those early days CNN offered information, not opinion or commentary.
There were, of course, op-ed shows and even debates, on both sides of the political spectrum and with solid arguments, such as CrossFire
Or debates such as Baldwin vs Buckley:
Then came the Clinton years and Fox channel and cable news became partisan mouthpieces of each one of the two main political parties: CNN and MSNBC for Democrats and Fox Channel for Republicans.
Twenty years into the 21st century, there is no more "news" in the news network. Just endless, 24/7 partisan "talking points" delivered by the media equivalents to a Press Secretary.
The rest of the world disappeared from US news. So did the rest to the United States other than what matters for campaign strategists. Cable news became a 24/7, endless "yellow pages" of political ads.
Is time to turn them off and get some news. You can try C-SPAN, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC (finances are still outside the partisan range) Reuters, and all the other international sources now available online.
Save money. Save sanity. Get some actual news. Drop Cable "News" Networks.
Please take some time to watch the video that precedes this paragraph. It shows in full display the experience of students and faculty in current US campuses.
"Safe zones", "political correctness" and historical revisionism defeat the purpose of higher education.
The "higher" in "higher education" stands for the respect for free-thinking regardless of its direction and content. Higher education is about learning how to think, not about learning what to think.
Under the guise of "safe zones", "critical thinking" and "social justice" extremist and intolerant minorities regularly impose their views, suppress dissent, and -more dangerously- use peer pressure, student debt, and faculty job stability to blackmail and coerce into silence.
History repeats itself -unfortunately not always as a farce but as a new, avoidable tragedy-.
George W. Bush's colossal blunders in Iraq and Katrina ended in embarrassing political ostracism.
But it was Katrina what doomed his Presidency
Donald J. Trump faced in Covid 19 pandemic a manifold-Katrina moment and -like the 43rd president- failed victim to a mix of hubris, incompetent staff, and superficial judgment.
In Trump's case, this is compounded by his own tendency to oversell and cater opportunistically to his Far Right base instead of addressing the problem.
Populist leaders tend -as Churchill put it- to "do the right thing once they exhausted all the alternatives".
Trump's presidency fate is less relevant for our long-view perspective than the pattern of historical repetition it reveals.
The price of forgetting historical experience is too high.
A global pandemic is a unique opportunity to test social performance and to measure the cost of ideological dogmatism and political posturing. Donald Trump in the US and Alberto Fernandez in Argentina put their bets on extremes. The former went to extremes to keep the economy "open" in the hope that it would pay off. The latter did the opposite, betting that closing the country indefinitely would abate the virus and give his government votes in midterm elections.
Both populist leaders catered to their Far Right and Far Left constituents blowing ideological whistles like "freedom" not to wear masks or "state protection" to keep people locked and controlled. Both have failed spectacularly and will probably pay in the coming elections.
Two "long view" lessons:
Reality is not a bumper sticker or a hat. Balance wins in the long run over bluster.
Popularity is ephemeral, mistakes permanent.
Uruguay provides a good example of success based on balancing healthcare with sensible economics and civil liberties.
The constant use of "Left" and "Right" as disqualifiers by
President Trump and his political antagonists reflects the use of extremist
views and politics of fringe minorities to dominate the political discourse and
polarize voters in a now endless election cycle.
What is "Left"
and "Right"?
The terms originated in
the National Assembly's seating arrangements at the time of the French
Revolution in 1789.
Those sitting on the
left-of-center benches were against nobility and monarchy. Those on the Right favor
them or at least of gradual change. Using violent tactics, those on the Left
initially prevailed. They included the revolution leaders, such as Robespierre
and Marat, and many others that came paradoxically from nobility or clergy.
They instituted rigid censorship of their rivals and, one by one, sent them to
execution in the guillotine. At the peak of this process, known as The Reign of
Terror, more than 20.000 "traitors" were summarily executed.
It didn't take them too
long to start fighting and killing each other. Marat was assassinated in his
bathtub, Robespierre in the guillotine. And even the guillotine's
inventor, the homonymous monsieur Guillotine, felt the blades on his own
neck.
After all the bloodbath came a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte, who restored
monarchy with his own relatives and partisans, giving way to the revenge of the
"Right" wing and a decade of wars and imperial conquer in Europe that
ended with Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo not before crowning himself
emperor of France.
It didn't take them too
long to start fighting and killing each other. Marat was assassinated in his
bathtub, Robespierre in the guillotine. And even the guillotine's
inventor, the homonymous monsieur Guillotine, felt the blades on his own
neck.
After all the bloodbath came a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte, who restored
monarchy with his own relatives and partisans, giving way to the revenge of the
"Right" wing and a decade of wars and imperial conquer in Europe that
ended with Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo not before crowning himself
emperor of France.The Framers of the
United States Constitution noticed the lessons of the Left and Right-wing
bloodbath in France and explicitly designed a Constitution to prevent what
Madison called "the tyranny of the majority" by instituting checking
powers and term limits.
Far Left and Far Right politics represented by different varieties of communism
and fascism caused WWII and the ensuing Cold War when the likes of Lenin,
Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rose to power after the Great
Depression, instituting their own "Terror": the nazi Holocaust, the
Soviet Gulags and "Cultural Revolutions" that according to most
historians caused between 100 and 200 million deaths between 1932 and 1992.
Today, "Left" and "Right" wing politics are present in
diverse forms, such as:
1.Identity politics and racist movements -from Birthers, Tea Party, and Q-Anon on
the "Right" to Antifa, La Raza, and BLM on the "Left"
2.Culture wars expressed with tribal
symbols such as MAGA hats,
Confederate Flags, taking down monuments, or re-writing history
3.Nationalistic, jingoistic movements such as MAGA, anti-immigrants, and Black
Power demonize those looking different and set one set of minorities against
each other.
These fringe, half-baked
ideologies are used by both political parties as "bait" to attract
frustrated voters through a toxic flow of 24/7 propaganda in Cable News
networks and social media.
Campuses and churches
have been captured by the Far Left and the Far Right as grassroots institutions
to indoctrinate followers.
"Left" and
"Right" wing categories are both wrong and toxic, as they are
designed to separate rival camps in perpetual wars between absolute concepts of
"good" and "evil" taken from religious war into politics.
"I have
already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular
reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now
take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against
the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature,
having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under
different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or
repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest
rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another,
sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in
different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline
the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able
or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes
of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which
nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual
mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and
duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and
enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded
jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another,
foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government
itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of
one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are
useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive
the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in
governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not
with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in
governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their
natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every
salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought
to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be
quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
"Culture wars" usually erupt in election years, fueled by politicians trying to make up for the lack of ideas and alternatives.
Left-wing activists engage in tearing down monuments -from General Lee to Columbus-, replacing flags and defunding the police. Right-wing activists wrap in Confederate flags, march with torches chanting against those who want to "replace us".
Who can win "culture wars"?
Did racism, fascism, and communism disappear after defeat in the battleground and sanction in the public speech? Does "political correctness" change minds?
Did racism and segregation ended with the Civil War? Affirmative Action? Electing the first black President?
The answers are self-evident, but let's go a step further:
What are we supposed to do with the losers in cultural wars? What are they? Where do they go? How do they live the rest of their lives?
"A house divided cannot stand" means that winners are supposed to exterminate losers? Exile them? Take away their First Amendment Rights?
Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Paul Kagame led their countries out of civil and cultural wars to long and peaceful processes of reconciliation and integration. The United States, South Africa, India, and Rwanda lost millions of lives in those wars and came out stronger thanks to this approach.
Facing an uphill battle for reelection, President Trump focuses his campaign on engaging in culture wars, assuming that this was what helped him win in 2016 -a curious concession to his most ardent critics on the Far Left and his own party-.
The country, meanwhile, has much more important things to care for. It looks at an epic economic downturn, a raging pandemic, and an overwhelmed healthcare system.
If Trump wins reelection, he will face a much more divided country than the one he found. If he loses, bitterness and division will remain for a long time as an obstacle for his successors.
The 40 percent of independent voters and the critical swing states will vote based on the future, not the past.
The past cannot be changed nor forgotten. It must be studied with respect and an open mind to learn from it lessons that can only be applied to the future. Those lessons will be different for different people, times, and circumstances. That's why museums and monuments must stand in place no matter what the opinion of the day is. Sometimes as a reminder of heroism, others as Holocaust or September 11 memorials, to remember atrocities. Heroes for some will be always villains for others. Napoleon and Cesar. TR and FDR. Churchill and Cromwell. Some monuments will always have opposite meanings for different groups. There is no way to escape this contradiction. It's up to civility to accept "freedom for the thought we hate" - and move on. Certainly, the military that fought for an abhorrent cause -like Generals Lee or Rommel- can be at once seen as heroes or villains. Removing their existing monuments will not change that perception. It might more likely intensify the sentiment on each side of the argument and invite revenge and reciprocation, not change and coming together. Monuments to controversial historical figures or concepts will always be exposed to public protests and rallies against whatever they represent that is at the time unacceptable for some. There is always the recourse of legislative action to remove them. That is very different from symbolic lynching or mob-driven takedowns. Adding new monuments is an entirely different thing. There, contemporary citizens can come to a democratic vote that will not close the argument either but will at least feel fair. Once the monument is up, posterity should just leave it that way and make all the arguments and demonstrations against it without defacing it or removing it, or destroying it. It might sound inadequate, but it's better than the alternative of "quicksands history" that revisionists propose.
Should Egyptians bring down the pyramids in revenge for Pharos' slave-owning tyranny? Should Romans destroy Caligula's and Nero's statues? There is no final conclusion for history. Historians are not judges. Retroactive justice is no justice at all and expressly outlawed in most judicial systems by statutes of limitationsand the concept of double jeopardy.
Perhaps the US can learn from Rwanda, the scene of a horrific genocidal war. The "losers" were judged by their contemporaries in their villages and sent to formal justice only when crimes were proven. As in most civil wars, the "war crimes" involved killing among neighbors and relatives for ethnic reasons.
Asking for ethnic origin was banned. There will be no Hutus and Tutsis, but Rwandan. And Never Again Rwanda keeps reminding coming generations about the dangers of engaging in "culture wars".
In less than one or at most four years Donald Trump will be an ex-president, as all the 44 before him and those who will come after.
What will be the shape of the post-Pandemic world?
One serious difficulty for answering such a question is that we are still in the middle of the Pandemic progression.
Lockdowns -total then partial- and emergency economic and social measures -induced coma for entire industries, colossal monetary stimulus and rescue plans for the duration, closed borders, exceptional trade barriers- cannot -and shouldn't be extrapolated.
Emergency, war economies are not valid foundations to build any serious strategy. Just think of September 2001 travel restrictions, the 5 or 6 bubble bursts in the last 20 years. TSA controls in airports didn't change air travel nor the current restrictions will. Duration will not change the fact that there is no alternative to globalization.
Looking at realistic options can be more productive. Let's make a shortlist of what is likely to come after a vaccine and effective treatment is in place -most likely by mid-2021-:
An inevitable bounce-back of all major and previously healthy OCDE economies with key differences in shape (V, U, L, W), course (2 or 3 rounds of open/close), and pace (from China's fast to EU and Latam slow)
A new "space race" for vaccines and prevention with large expansions of healthcare spending and investment that will relocate government spending and redirect private,
Restructuring of global value chains replacing unreliable partners -China beware- that can't control their domestic practices and epidemic issues with others that can. -Opportunities for Southeast Asia, Oceania-
The reinvention of business models factoring health and sanitation.
"PTSD"- scared customers changing habits and preferences in critical ways for several industries: (1) travel, tourism & hospitality (2) food (3) entertainment (4) travel (5) leisure (6) workplace (7) education (8) retail (9) real estate -particularly commercial- and (10) urban development (a trend away from high-density, public transportation)
Inflationary risks
Government debt & public spending
E-performance will likely stay at least 60% of the current level of replacement for knowledge and "white collar" work. E-learning will enter a new level of maturity and the higher education equation will veer away from "campus" and "real estate" towards the lower-price point, learning experience-focused options (global faculty, local application, flexible options)
Like a meteorite falling into Earth altered the climate eons ago, the pandemic will determine winners -the Amazons and Zooms that will thrive after capturing market share-; fast learners -the Ubers able to reinvent and/or exploit new opportunities and "Empresas" -those industries tied to high-maintenance, rigid models and high sunken costs such as tourism, hospitality, travel, and food-.
It's time to look around, and then, to look inside and start thinking anew.
COVID 19 pandemic makes the perfect case for the concept of this Blog: a long, global view as opposed to the narrow, partisan, parochial, and short-term approach that has brought the world to this avoidable catastrophe. The last report from The Economist reveals the extent to which a crisis like this have been forecasted in advance... and ignored by press and politicians more interested in indefinite but more marketable problems such as global warming or inequality of income. Quote (bold is from this author):
"In february 2018a panel of experts convened by the World
Health Organisation (who) put together a list of diseases
that posed big public-health risks but for which there were few or no
countermeasures. It featured various well-recognised threats, including
Ebola, sars, Zika and Rift Valley fever. But it also included
“Disease X”.
This
illness, caused by a pathogen never before seen in humans, would, the panel
said, emerge from animals somewhere in a part of the world where people had
encroached on wildlife habitats. It would be more deadly than seasonal
influenza but would spread just as easily between people. By hitching rides on
travel and trade networks, it would journey beyond its continent of origin
within weeks of its emergence. It would cause the world’s next big pandemic, and
leave economic and social devastation in its wake. Indeed.
Less
than two years after the report was published Disease X turned up. It began
late last year in Wuhan, China, and the wider world became aware of it in
January. It has now infected nearly 10m people and killed almost 500,000 of
them. That death toll is also likely to reach seven figures before things are
over. For Disease X now has a name: covid-19.
I told
you so
Though
perhaps the loudest, the who’s was not the only
warning that something like this might happen. Moreover, some of the prophets,
such as Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist who is head of an independent
research organisation called the EcoHealth Alliance, specifically focused on
the risk posed by bat-borne coronaviruses, as sars-cov-2, the cause of covid-19, has turned
out to be. And the point of issuing those warnings was preparedness.
With the
correct systems in place a potential pandemic, spotted early, might be nipped
in the bud.
Instead,
the world’s response to the new illness has been similar to its response
to sars in 2002 and, after that, to h5n1 avian influenza in 2005. This is to move into a costly
panic mode intended to slow the spread of the disease while scientists race to
develop a vaccine. “This,” as Dr Daszak, observes wryly, “is not a plan.”
Zoonotic infectious diseases are as frequent as flu, as dangerous as HIV, and as frequently reported as the past five years of SARS, MERS, and so on. Yet, there has been more funding for finding (or implementing) "solutions" to long term, ill-defined menaces such as "global warming" or "climate change" than to actual and real epidemics such as SARS, MERS,m HIV, Ebola, to name some of COVID 19 predecessors.
Wild animals wet markets, unsanitary poultry, pig production, and distribution continues rampant and coexistence of human, bats, and civets remain as common in Asia as it was before the current pandemic.
This is not science fiction. It's just willing ignorance of overwhelming and continuous scientific evidence. At a fraction of the cost of keeping 14 nuclear carriers and billions of dollars in defense spending for the remote eventuality of a WWIII-like confrontation in the indefinite future China, the US, and the EU could have already developed an effective vaccine and treatments.
Bill Gates warned in his TED talks 5 years before this disaster, only for conspiracy theorists to attack him incited by partisan propaganda networks on the Left and on the Right side of the spectrum
Gates -whose only crime is being a self-made billionaire turned philanthropist for the past 20 years- has been leading actual efforts to fight pandemics out of his own pocket. Governments -US, EU, and China- have willingly ignored or even obstructed these and other efforts by hiding information until the crisis was already consuming the world.
This is not new. Henrik Ibsen wrote An Enemy of the People back in 1896 with the same story: short-sighted politicians serving special interests attacking science and blocking efforts to save lives.
It's belated time to look at social events with a long view, fact- and science-based perspective.
For all his evident shortcomings, Trump holds a steady 30-35 % of the US vote. The stereotype of hillbillies, white supremacists, "systemic racists" and "white trash" can't account for more than a marginal part of all that.
9 million Obama voters -from 2008 and 2012 elections- that voted for Trump in 2016 and might vote again for him.
They are (1) small town, rural voters; (2) small business, family-owned and operated, (3) college-educated white and black, (4) latino american, self-employed immigrants.
They have common immediate requirements such as:
Lower taxes
Keeping their private insurance
Keeping their access to charter schools
Repealing the state tax that kills multi-generational farm families
Rejection of "identity politics" and embracing "Americanism", melting-pot approach to cultural integration (speak English, be self-sufficient, raise traditional families values)
Pragmatic, non-ideological voters: "it's the economy, stupid" criterion first.
Here are some samples from focus groups held by WSJ and ABC news following them in their towns for the past two years:
Texas:
Iowa:
Georgia: Black voters
Obama voters for Trump
A reality check can help assess the "two Americas" -rural and urban- trends and see beyond political stereotypes and pundit talk what the actual voters vote for.
Even if Trump loses in an anti-Trump "tsunami", these voices and voters must be heard and taken into account to understand why.
