The very personal, destructive effect,

[JHan]

66. I would never twist Harris' words

I agree with him on some things but not all - I especially disagree with him on some shit he's been saying recently.

He gave this opinion in the immediate aftermath of the election when blaming "identity politics" was in vogue. Here Harris is guilty of " Pundit's fallacy" . If Clinton had won the Electoral College, he would still be complaining about the "regressive left". The essence of his arguments take the form of a morality play ( thanks to Jacob T Levy for that smart observation) where the people who didn't do what he wanted them to come to a tragic end - Gosh, if only they listened to him their fate could have been avoided! ..................... As we get more data more about the election, we learn that deplorable attitudes did play a part, so did voter suppression, so did Comey's letter, so did an over reliance on the meme that the Obama coalition ( which started to get shakey in 2012) was strong.. but there are no easy or neat explanations.

And you can't ignore History either.

Trump's rise coincides with the rise of a special brand of conservatism in America, which borrows from European far right ideas. Republicans used to run on some very simple themes , all related to each other, which activated their hive mind: the preservation of family though conservative social norms, protection of family, town, city and nation by a strong military, responsible fiscal management and nationalism - allegiance to "soil" and country.

With Brown v Board of Education and the Civil Rights movement , Dixiecrats felt alienated in a Democratic party that was increasingly becoming concerned with social justice issues and conservatives couldn't resist making a play for them. During FDR's presidency, Conservatives would frame anti-establishment, anti-liberal elite arguments against FDR's liberal policies and now the Civil Rights movement brought those arguments into focus - "How dare the federal government tell southern states what to do?"

Then in the 70's, Lee Atwater imprinted his style of politics on the Republican Party, using dog whistles and code words , all cloaked in ambiguity. Reagan adopted the same style. These dog whistles weren't called out much, rather their ambiguity was accepted and incorporated into legitimate political discourse.

Then came the fall of the Soviet Union, and the religious right squeezed their way into republican politics. It was still a tough time for conservatism in some respects. The post civil rights,post- modern Conservative movement was still forming itself, and Liberalism won the arguments on women's rights, racial equality, etc. By the time Bush Jr became President, Conservatism was a mix of inchoate ideas with no singular theme running through them: There was christian fundamentalism, concern about the national debt, anti abortion crusades, compassionate conservatism - an idea designed to appeal to non-white voters ( especially hispanics), low taxes, family values, anti-gay rhetoric etc etc. but no theme connecting these ideas together.

Then came 9/11. Conservatives couldn't have hoped for more potent symbolism in that tragedy. Islam became the new Soviet Union, and the antagonists in this tragedy were brown and Muslim to boot. Right wing radio and Fox News seized the moment and ran with it, thus was birthed the toxicity of right wing radio and right wing media.

The election of Obama after Bush was the icing on the cake for them in terms of the narratives they were selling. And the narratives became clear - goodbye Compassionate Conservatism, hello race politics. Gerrymandering districts to favor whites while Fox News brought up the flank with 24/7 coverage of black "thugs" and mexican immigrants taking advantage of white americans - "stealing" jobs, raping, murdering and bringing in drugs. On top of that, Anti Muslim hysteria, painting feminists as "crazy" "Corrupting" "feminazis" who were supposedly killing the family unit and corrupting society, and associating homosexuality with pedophilia. Social justice issues, for which Democrats were associated with, was demonized and Democrats viewed as terrorism enablers while Republicans were painted as the preservers of White Christian America.

Obama's election didn't thwart their efforts - he was called "weak" a "kenyan" "Muslim" "outsider". Congress Republicans got the memo and did their bit through obstructing Obama's agenda.

And how could Obama's message of Hope and governance by consensus survive in the realities of politics where the emergence of the Tea Party showed there was an appetite on the right for strong ideologues and an uncompromising stance on issues? Where pragmatists and ideologues were at loggerheads in both parties? The result of this was years of stuckism and gridlock.

No surprises then that people wanted "change". A sizeable portion of the electorate was primed and ready for Trump, some were despondent about politics in general, and some were disenfranchised. Trump was prepared to tap into resentments in a way no Republican presidential candidate dared to in decades.

... but by all means, blame Liberals.