The Clash of Tendencies

Two tendencies in the Democratic Party:

*The movement of the rich and well-educated (capital: Fairfax County, Virginia) towards the Democratic Party and the poor and poorly-educated (capital: West Virginia) towards the Republican Party.

*Growing radical income egalitarianism, especially among overwhelmingly Democratic Brahmins (capital: Vermont)

In short, the Clinton (closest GOP analogue: Kasich) v. Sanders (closest GOP analogue: Trump) tendencies.

One is not compatible with the other.

This is the fundamental tension of the Democratic Party. It has existed ever since FDR invited both Blacks and Jews into the Party, and was only exacerbated when Brahmins and the rich were brought into it during the early 1990s by Clinton.

In short, who’s going to rule the future Democratic Party: rich Manhattanites (as they usually did, except during the Fourth Party System) or Whites desiring cutting the heads off Wall Street executives (as they did in the age of Bryan)?

And with whom do the academics side?

The financial industry has shifted its donations AWAY from the Democratic Party over the past decade. And yet, the rich still move to the Democratic Party.

Back in 1896, things were simple: if you were poor, a Townie, a racist, or a farmer -that is, a populist- you voted for Bryan.

If you were rich, a Brahmin, a cuck, or an urbanite -that is, an elitist- you voted for McKinley.

Now, it’s not so simple. There are two populist parties. There are two elitist parties. Bush was Bryan, but with tax cuts for the rich, in place of Bryanite tax increases. The candidate that won the most primary votes in the counties in Georgia and New York State with the highest median household income (Forsyth County, a tony suburb of Atlanta, and Puntam County in upstate New York) was Donald Trump (note: the candidate they really seemed to hate in Forsyth county was Ben Carson).

Who do poor Whites side with? Sanders, as in Vermont? Or Trump, as in Mississippi?

Is the future of the Democratic Party to become the party of tax cuts for rich elitists? Or is it to become the Maoist party with no appeal to the rich?

Could Sanders, who won the West Virginia primary, have actually won in West Virginia in the general election?

Is it even advisable for there to be a party composed solely of elites or anti-elitists?

And is the next Bryan going to emerge out of the Democratic Party or the Republican? If William Jennings Bryan was re-incarnated a year ago and decided to run for President, in which party would he run in? My suspicions lean to the Republican.

Thus, the correlation between Trump/Clinton support in the general election (as opposed to the primary) and income today is nonexistent, at least among Whites. Forsyth and Puntam counties are going to vote solidly Trump, and Whites in Philadelphia, Manhattan, Marin County, and San Francisco are going to vote solidly for Clinton. In all prior elections, there was a correlation between higher income and support for the Republican Party.

This post was inspired by the Lion of the Blogosphere pointing out that Clinton’s tax plan was still more economically populist than the Trump tax plan.

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: