DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Trump and the GOP: An Historical Perspective

This arrived in my e-mail inbox yesterday, sent by a colleague who's voted R for over 50 years. I found it to be an interesting take, from an angle that hasn't been explored (to my knowledge).

Just thought I'd share the article for now. Any thoughts/impressions I might have will be shared later... you guys deserve to read it without any of my (editorial) input.
Clem.

______________

TRUMP’S REBEL YELL: HOW THE TECH REVOLUTION IS SETTING UP ANOTHER CIVIL WAR

A technological revolution killed the Whig Party in 1850. A new one is blasting the GOP into splinters in 2016. Amazingly, none of the presidential candidates talk much about technology, yet our software-eats-the-world whirlwind drives everything that’s cleaving the country and throwing its politics into chaos. The parallels to the dynamics of the 1850s are a little scary. After all, the Whigs’ self-destruction was a prelude to the Civil War. Like today, the technological revolution in the mid-1800s ushered in a disruptive new era of connectivity, and transportation technology was key. Before the 1800s, getting anywhere—or exchanging any information over distance—involved horses, mud roads or boats. Movement was so hard that almost all business in America stayed local and small, and much of it was centered on agriculture.

Then, starting around 1810, the country paved roads and built canals. Robert Fulton invented the steamboat in 1807, and within a couple of decades mountains of goods were flowing upstream. The monster agent of change was the railroads. The country built rail lines with the same alacrity that would go into building the Web during the dot-com boom. By 1860, the U.S. boasted more miles of rail than the rest of the world combined.Oh, and in the 1830s Samuel Morse invented the telegraph. By 1860, telegraph lines spanned the continent. You couldn’t quite sit in Boston and Skype your dad at the California Gold Rush, but prices and business data could cross states in a flash. It was an information transformation. All of this changed life and economics in ways we can relate to today. News and people traveled faster than anyone had ever experienced. The cost of moving products and services plummeted in the same way Amazon or cloud-based apps have driven down distribution costs. Such forces made it easier for big companies in one place to serve customers everywhere. The technology “made possible a division of labor and specialization of production for ever larger and more distant markets,” wrote James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom, his epic Civil War history. So by 1850, factories were making certain types of craftsmen obsolete, department stores were driving local shops to close, and people found themselves losing jobs to someone far away. Much like today, money in the early 1800s flowed to the new economy and away from the old economy. Capitalists who owned production got richer, and laborers lost power. The gap between rich and poor widened. Cue the kind of anger Donald Trump is tapping into now. And here’s the twist: In 1850, New England was essentially Silicon Valley, and the Northern states created and embraced new technology while the Southern states held tight to agriculture and a way of life that also happened to include the moral outrage of holding slaves.

A telling statistic from McPherson: Of the 143 important inventions patented in the U.S. from 1790 to 1860, 93 percent were from Northern “free” states. He wrote, “The North appeared to be racing ahead of the South in crucial indices of economic development.”Slavery turned into a flashpoint issue, but the real unrest boiled up from this giant economic rift. Technology transformed the North into an industrial economy while the South was anchored in an agricultural economy, one that couldn't operate without slavery. The North had a population that saw the advantage in embracing technology and progressive ideas (including that slavery was bad) and moving forward. The South's way of life and economic fortunes rested on keeping things as they'd been. The South viewed the North as a threat. Look today at red states vs. blue, or even Trump supporters vs. “establishment” Republicans. Those divisions broadly define where digital-cloud-mobile technology and the modern economy work in favor of the population vs. where they work against them.

Trump says “make America great again,” which, to his supporters, means “make America what it used to be.” To people whose livelihoods have suffered because of economic shifts ushered in by technology, moving backward looks better than moving forward—not just in economic issues but in social mores as well. The big difference between now and then is that instead of that shift from agriculture to industry in 1850, today we’re seeing a shift from industry to software. The more that software can leverage the work of fewer humans, the fewer humans are needed for work, and the more profits flow to owners of the software. One industrial company, United Technologies, provides an example. At 218,300 employees, the company’s workforce hasn’t grown in seven years, even while revenue jumped from $42.7 billion in 2005 to $57.7 billion in 2012. That’s $15 billion not being spent on more employees. Productivity created by technology tends to put more earnings into fewer hands. Software is eating the world, as investor Marc Andreessen famously put it. The makers of the software are eating the money. The lives of many of the people in tech hubs such as Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., are going one way. The lives of many people in industrial or rural areas are going another. It may not be a North-South divide, but you can see a break widening between the coasts and the nation’s interior.

Trump has become the voice of those technology has hurt. He’s not just a protest vote; he’s a rebel vote. It’s a rebellion against Republican leaders who failed to conserve industrial jobs and a more traditional society. It’s not that different from the Whigs in 1850, when the party split between “Conscience” Whigs, who were pro-industry and anti-slavery (and thus threatened the whole Southern economic house of cards), and “Cotton” Whigs, who would fight to preserve an increasingly outmoded way of life. The party cracked in two, and the Northern Whigs joined the new Republican Party, which put Abraham Lincoln in the White House in 1861. Shots were fired on Fort Sumter soon after, starting the Civil War.

The current rift in America isn’t going to mend if Trump wins, or loses. Look at what’s coming. Autonomous vehicles will eat driving jobs of every kind. Artificial intelligence will eat rules-based white-collar jobs like accounting. Block-chain technology will result in software-based contracts that eliminate the need for mortgage brokers and lots of lawyers. Factory work will be diminished by 3-D printing. The total disruption of the 20th-century way of life is inevitable and far from over. Of course, like the tech revolution of 1850, ours should eventually create enormous opportunities we never dreamed possible. It is the path to wealth and comfort for every part of the country and every level of society. The best news is that, like in 1850, the U.S. leads the world in all of the important technologies. If we as a people can get through this, we won’t make America great “again”— we’ll make it into something cooler and better than it’s ever been.

Somebody has to step up and lead us through this transition—rally us and help us all benefit from the great inventions of our time. I can only imagine that if some farsighted leader in 1860 told Southerners that they were a generation away from cars, airplanes, electricity and the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, they might have worked out a way to end slavery and skip a devastating war.


http://www.newsweek.com/trump-rebel-yell-tech-revolution-setting-civil-war-436212

Fun to read and also a bit scary.

Good read. I don't agree with it all but much is true.

Said this for a while now. People are so gung-ho about replacing minimum wage workers with machines. Guess what, you're next.

Somebody is still going to have to grow food, frame houses, change car tires, pick up trash, etc... not everything can be completely automated, at least not for a long while... we are just going to have to decide if those people deserve a decent life or if they should serve at the behest of the educated and successful.

If AI is developed enough, those jobs will be replaced too. With all do respect, those are manual labor jobs. Not a lot of thought has to go into them. If we're talking jobs in the human service industry like law enforcement, nursing, teaching, etc. I agree.

I would say you can't replace sex. But they're already making sex robots so....

People don't realize this, but television will be gone soon too. The Internet is going to replace it completely because people are tired of the prices.

I don't know if it will die completely, but it's going to end up like newspapers.

[quote=DCDAWGFAN]
Somebody is still going to have to grow food, frame houses, change car tires, pick up trash, etc... /quote]

Illegal aliens are currently doing every one of those jobs you just mentioned. They don't demand overtime or healthcare or vacation or sick time either. They just work.

Like Americans should do, right?

No, I don't agree with you that American Citizens should have to work without healthcare, Vacation etc...

But that is who they are being forced to compete with.

But nobody is forcing businesses to hire illegals.

Kinda sorta.

Jc Ever seen that movie Wall-E? That's the future. Overweight lazy people floating around on a chair, plugged into technology while machines cater to all their needs.

At least that would solve that nasty over-population problem, people will die of heart attacks at 20.

I was born too soon.

And here I thought having a towel was our ticket to happiness, who knew it would be a floating chair?

No it's not. TV is the only art that Americans actually partake in. What you'll probably see happen is a proliferation of TV shows.

I always thought a towel was a tool for survival. The future will probably look more like an Asimov book. How long before our robot overlords don't need us anymore?

Then The Matrix happens. The robots farm humans for energy.

If the robot overlord has no one to lord over, there isn't much point of being, is there?

But is it Clean Energy?

I have never liked either party, nor have I ever respected anybody who voted by party lines alone. I am not even a Trump fan. HOWEVER if Trump wins the popular vote then gets screwed by the repubs. I will find it very hard to ever vote for a republican candidate again. I Think that would mark the first time in my life that I started voting for the candidate that was the best for my needs and wants and force me to start saying screw everybody else

I disagree with the idea of Trump being screwed if he does get to 1237.

The rules say that to win the Republican nomination, you get to 1237. That's how you win. It's not by winning a plurality of the vote. (which is what Trump has so far, not a majority) The rules have not been changed to screw Trump. These are the rules he agreed to run under, and now that he may, or may not not make it, he is whining.

More people have voted against Trump than have voted for him on the Republican side of things. Now maybe Trump manages to get to 1237, and if he does, then the Republicans should absolutely not do anything to take it away from him. However, if he is short of the mark to make, then it is anyone's ballgame.

Right now, according to Real Clear Politics, Trump, counting tonight's results, has 9,789,688 votes. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich have a combined 13,956,116. Even removing Rubio from the equation, more people have voted for Kasich and Cruz combined, (10,317,989) then for Trump. If Trump fails to reach 1237, does the Republican party give him the nomination anyway, knowing that more people voted against him than for him?

Personally, I think that whoever gets a plurality of the votes should win the nomination, but those are not the rules. If Trump does not make 1237, things will get really interesting. Trump may melt down if that happens.

I will also say this: If Trump had not tried so hard to tear down the Party, his "fellow" Republicans, and anything not Trump, he might have made more allies, who could help him in winning the aspects outside of the pure elector vote totals.Instead he blasted everyone ..... and I mean way beyond what most candidates do. Calling Rubio "Little Marco" and Cruz "Lyin'Ted" made no fans in my family. You fight for the nomination,but there is a point where you go scorched earth, and do major damage to everyone not carrying your last name.

I would also add that Trump failed in one other major way in this election. He failed to understand the importance of a good ground game. He thought, and maybe still thinks, that he can win on the force of his personality alone. He recently hired a well respected guy to help him finish the run, win, and appeal to more people ..... and has already neutered him, returning power to his campaign manager, because he didn't like what the new guy said. This is an area where Trump has major weakness. Don't tell him anything he doesn't want to hear. Maybe if Trump had studied the issues better, he would not have completely flubbed the hard questions on abortion and other issues. Maybe if he would have actually studied the rules, or listened to those who did, he would not have been so completely (and legally) outmaneuvered in Oregon. (I think that's where Cruz took all of the delegates, largely because Trump ignored the state almost completely) This is what worries the heck out of me about Trump. He has his opinions, and wants the facts to conform to what he thinks. He thinks that he can say anything, and it will be so. That's dangerous, if you ask me.

Anyway, if Trump fails to get 1237, and then fails to get the nomination, he will have no one to blame but himself.

Do you understand what you just posted? Because it's meaningless.

You're taking one persons vote total and comparing it to the vote totals of 3, (or 2) others combined votes.

That's like saying Golden State's record number of wins doesn't mean anything, because if you add up Cleveland's wins and Miami's wins, they have more wins. Consequently, screw GS. Right?

No, what I am saying is that more Republican primary voters have voted against Trump, then for him.

That is an argument for denying him, if he fails to reach 1237. Maybe it's not a great argument, but it is true that he has nothing even remotely approaching a majority of the vote. Regardless, having a plurality of the vote is, in no way, a qualifier for winning the nomination.

This, right here.

He's been like this since before he was a public figure. He's always been like this. I don't care how massaged his image becomes, he will always be the person he is.

He is a person who should never sit inside an ops room or be entrusted with our nation's nuclear codes. Period.

It almost melts my brain to think that he's already come this close... and I've found absolutely nothing about it to be fun, entertaining- or anything less than terrifying.

How can you even say that? You don't vote "against" someone. You vote "for" someone.

But, doing it your way, more people have voted "against" each of the other options. Right? As individuals, cruz kasich, rubio - NONE of them come close individually. So, again, using your logic, more people have voted against any of the other combined candidates.

It's just inane reasoning on your part.

"hey, that 1 guy got 9 million votes, but us 3 got 10 million combined, so, that must mean 10 million don't want him, even though only 3 million want any of us individually."


If that is the argument for denying him - that he didn't get 1237 electorate votes, WHAT, praytell, would be the argument for giving the nod to any of the others, that got even LESS electorates?

Trump is about the business of branding. His name is his business. It's Trump Towers, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump This, Trump That. People will buy because of the name regardless of the quality of the product.

He's been successful at it and continues that on into this campaign. He's Trump, he showed up and why shouldn't that be all that he needs to do?

The delegates are bound on the first vote of the convention to vote for the candidate(s) based on their individual states rules of distributing delegates. If no candidate reaches 1237, the second vote the delegates are free to vote for whom they choose. If Trump does not reach 1237 you can't take away from him something he's not won.

No popular vote has taken place, only primary votes or caucuses that decide delegate distribution only.

I love this argument. Which one do you think should be sitting there with the proverbial finger on the button? The woman under investigation for corruption? The socialist whack job? The evangelist? It's almost as if you're saying the Trump is insane, which he obviously isn't. I'd trust Trump with that duty, as a launch is bad for business.

Man, that went a LOOOOONG way to sketch a vague parallel between Trump & the Whig party - making sure to include plenty of racism along the way.

Very craftily written piece.

Heaven forbid we get a President who actually understands finance, has worked many deals throughout the world and has built an Empire for himself and is now looking to do the same for our Nation.

He must be Nuts!
or Hitler
or a Racist
or a Commie

I mean what Economic problems do we have? He should just butt out!

Maybe you should buy some of his steaks?

That's a clinical diagnosis I'm not qualified to make. However, this guy has a well-documented track record of behavior that doesn't sit well with me:

3 wives (I've had only one- for 32 years)
4 bankruptcies
inflammatory campaign rhetoric that is now being tempered/walked back by his new 'handler' (the very type of "Washington insider" he railed against just 10 months ago...)
"POW's (John McCain) aren't war heroes"
childish name-calling of campaign opponents
openly mocking a disabled person to a crowd of thousands
petty, late-night 'tweets' that indicate thin skin, and read like a 10th grade cyberbully...

...and the list goes on and on... and on and on.

A list, by the way, that can't be shared by any other candidate.

So... in answer to your question:
I'd take ANY of them before I'd even consider Trump as a janitor at 1600 Penn. I dislike and mistrust him that much. Dude represents about 80% of social behavioral traits I find objectionable and/or offensive... and a good number of those traits disqualify him as a viable POTUS, in my opinion.



You type as if you're a fan... so sell me on this dude. I don't mean downtalking his competition (because that's always weak tea)... I mean: be his campaign manager/publicist here at Dawgtalkers. Convince me that my 30+ years of loathing this cretin was unjustified.

Good luck.

see my comments to Erik.

I've already wasted too much time on this... "person."

Sounds like he's already bought some of his kool aid...

You posted a looooong statement just to tell us you won't be voting for Trump. You are already sold on this issue.
Judging from the response Trump has gotten from the American People, I would say he has made his case better than your case against.

I'm not going to try to sell him to you, as your mind is already made up. It's obvious I couldn't sell him to you if he came with a solid gold toilet. But I will take some of your points and refute them.

3 wives. So? Is it better to stay together in a marriage that isn't working, or to move on? (see bill and hillary) My wife and I have been married for 19 years. She's my only wife, and I'm her 2nd husband. Should I not have married her for having a failed marriage before?

4 bankruptcies. Again, so? Did he do something illegal in these filings? He has around 500 successful businesses that are employing a lot of people. He followed the laws to declare bankruptcy on the businesses that didn't work out. It's better than embezzling money from real estate ventures.

Inflammatory campaign rhetoric. And the candidate who never used inflammatory rhetoric is holding what office right now? Your local high school's SCA maybe? His opponents don't have handlers or washington insiders?

Mccain isn't a war hero. Made up again. What I heard is that just because you got tossed in a POW camp, it doesn't make you a war hero. McCain was, but he has since sullied his reputation with ABScam and other fiascoes.

Childish name calling. Really? I seem to remember obama joking john mccain for not being able to use a computer. He can't type because his arms were broken several times in the POW camp, so he doesn't use a computer. They all do it, they have all always done it. You are using selective hearing.

Mocking handicapped. See above about obama. "Stand up, Chuck" is another one of my favorites. Also, as I recall, the mocking incident you reference is made up by the liberal media.

Petty late night tweets. At least he answers his phone at 3am, instead of sneaking off to a fund raiser. Where was hillary at 3am?

That list you make is shared by all of them. Quite honestly, I'm not a fan of any of them. When I see the true constitutional conservative, I'll let you know.

So far he has garnered around 40% of one party. I'm not sure you can call that a huge success to this point.

You know Eric, you usually make valid points no matter whether we agree on things or not. But your seeming support or justifications for Trumps stupid mistakes and blatant hate of anyone who discounts or crosses his path doesn't do you justice.

He seems to be almost everything you've railed against in the past.