Its not quite our picture, but there are parallels:

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST

Wrath of the Conned

Paul Krugman

APRIL 29, 2016

Maybe we need a new cliché: It ain¹t over until Carly Fiorina sings.
Anyway, it really is over ‹ definitively on the Democratic side, with
high probability on the Republican side. And the results couldn¹t be
more different.

Think about where we were a year ago. At the time, Hillary Clinton and
Jeb Bush were widely seen as the front-runners for their parties¹
nods. If there was any dissent from the commentariat, it came from
those suggesting that Mr. Bush might be supplanted by a fresher, but
still establishment, face, like Marco Rubio.

And now here we are. But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most
negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle ‹ yes, worse
than Donald Trump¹s ‹ go the distance, while the G.O.P. establishment
went down to humiliating defeat?

Personalities surely played a role; say what you like (or dislike)
about Mrs. Clinton, but she¹s resilient under pressure, a character
trait notably lacking on the other side. But basically it comes down
to fundamental differences between the parties and how they serve
their supporters.

Both parties make promises to their bases. But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises, the
Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch
for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con.

First, about the Democrats: Their party defines itself as the
protector of the poor and the middle class, and especially of nonwhite
voters. Does it fall short of fulfilling this mission much of the
time? Are its leaders sometimes too close to big-money donors? Of
course. Still, if you look at the record of the Obama years, you see
real action on behalf of the party¹s goals.

Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act, which has given about 20
million Americans health insurance, with the gains biggest for the
poor, minorities and low-wage workers. That¹s what you call delivering
for the base ‹ and it¹s surely one reason nonwhite voters have
overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes
seemed to dismiss that achievement.

And this was paid for largely with higher taxes on the rich, with
average tax rates on very high incomes rising by about six percentage
points since 2008.

Maybe you think Democrats could and should have done more, but what
the party establishment says and what it does are at least roughly
aligned.

Things are very different among Republicans. Their party has
historically won elections by appealing to racial enmity and cultural
anxiety, but its actual policy agenda is dedicated to serving the
interests of the 1 percent, above all through tax cuts for the rich ‹
which even Republican voters don¹t support, while they truly loathe
elite ideas like privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

What Donald Trump has been doing is telling the base that it can order
à la carte. He has, in effect, been telling aggrieved white men that
they can feed their anger without being forced to swallow supply-side economics, too. Yes, his actual policy proposals still involve huge
tax cuts for the rich, but his supporters don¹t know that ‹ and it¹s
possible that he doesn¹t, either. Details aren¹t his thing.

Establishment Republicans have tried to counter his appeal by
shouting, with growing hysteria, that he isn¹t a true conservative.
And they¹re right, at least as they define conservatism. But their own
voters don¹t care.

If there¹s a puzzle here, it¹s why this didn¹t happen sooner. One
possible explanation is the decadence of the G.O.P. establishment,
which has become ingrown and lost touch. Apparatchiks who have spent
their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and
partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is
actually popular with real people. And this has left them hapless in
the face of a Trumpian challenge.

Probably more important, however, is the collision between demography
and Obama derangement. The elite knows that the party must broaden its
appeal as the electorate grows more diverse ‹ in fact, that was the
conclusion of the G.O.P.¹s 2013 post-mortem. But the base, its
hostility amped up to 11 after seven years of an African-American
president (who the establishment has done its best to demonize) is
having none of it.

The point, in any case, is that the divergent nomination outcomes of
2016 aren¹t an accident. The Democratic establishment has won because
it has, however imperfectly, tried to serve its supporters. The
Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a
con game on its supporters all along, and they¹ve finally had enough.

And yes, Mr. Trump is playing a con game of his own, and they¹ll
eventually figure that out, too. But it won¹t happen right away, and
in any case it won¹t help the party establishment. Sad!


A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 29, 2016, on page
A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Wrath of the Conned.

© The New York Times Company 2016

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6fi7ib1r7dedoirji4vfe60kcie5fj4520@4ax.com...

Its not quite our picture, but there are parallels:

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST

Wrath of the Conned

Paul Krugman

APRIL 29, 2016

Maybe we need a new cliché: It ain¹t over until Carly Fiorina sings.
Anyway, it really is over < definitively on the Democratic side, with
high probability on the Republican side. And the results couldn¹t be
more different.

Think about where we were a year ago. At the time, Hillary Clinton and
Jeb Bush were widely seen as the front-runners for their parties¹
nods. If there was any dissent from the commentariat, it came from
those suggesting that Mr. Bush might be supplanted by a fresher, but
still establishment, face, like Marco Rubio.

And now here we are. But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most
negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle < yes, worse
than Donald Trump¹s < go the distance, while the G.O.P. establishment
went down to humiliating defeat?

Personalities surely played a role; say what you like (or dislike)
about Mrs. Clinton, but she¹s resilient under pressure, a character
trait notably lacking on the other side. But basically it comes down
to fundamental differences between the parties and how they serve
their supporters.

Both parties make promises to their bases. But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises, the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch
for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con.

First, about the Democrats: Their party defines itself as the
protector of the poor and the middle class, and especially of nonwhite voters. Does it fall short of fulfilling this mission much of the
time? Are its leaders sometimes too close to big-money donors? Of
course. Still, if you look at the record of the Obama years, you see
real action on behalf of the party¹s goals.

Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act, which has given about 20
million Americans health insurance, with the gains biggest for the
poor, minorities and low-wage workers. That¹s what you call delivering
for the base < and it¹s surely one reason nonwhite voters have
overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes
seemed to dismiss that achievement.

And this was paid for largely with higher taxes on the rich, with
average tax rates on very high incomes rising by about six percentage
points since 2008.

Maybe you think Democrats could and should have done more, but what
the party establishment says and what it does are at least roughly
aligned.

Things are very different among Republicans. Their party has
historically won elections by appealing to racial enmity and cultural anxiety, but its actual policy agenda is dedicated to serving the
interests of the 1 percent, above all through tax cuts for the rich <
which even Republican voters don¹t support, while they truly loathe
elite ideas like privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

What Donald Trump has been doing is telling the base that it can order
à la carte. He has, in effect, been telling aggrieved white men that
they can feed their anger without being forced to swallow supply-side economics, too. Yes, his actual policy proposals still involve huge
tax cuts for the rich, but his supporters don¹t know that < and it¹s
possible that he doesn¹t, either. Details aren¹t his thing.

Establishment Republicans have tried to counter his appeal by
shouting, with growing hysteria, that he isn¹t a true conservative.
And they¹re right, at least as they define conservatism. But their own
voters don¹t care.

If there¹s a puzzle here, it¹s why this didn¹t happen sooner. One
possible explanation is the decadence of the G.O.P. establishment,
which has become ingrown and lost touch. Apparatchiks who have spent
their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and
partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is
actually popular with real people. And this has left them hapless in
the face of a Trumpian challenge.

Probably more important, however, is the collision between demography
and Obama derangement. The elite knows that the party must broaden its
appeal as the electorate grows more diverse < in fact, that was the conclusion of the G.O.P.¹s 2013 post-mortem. But the base, its
hostility amped up to 11 after seven years of an African-American
president (who the establishment has done its best to demonize) is
having none of it.

The point, in any case, is that the divergent nomination outcomes of
2016 aren¹t an accident. The Democratic establishment has won because
it has, however imperfectly, tried to serve its supporters. The
Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a
con game on its supporters all along, and they¹ve finally had enough.

And yes, Mr. Trump is playing a con game of his own, and they¹ll
eventually figure that out, too. But it won¹t happen right away, and
in any case it won¹t help the party establishment. Sad!

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 29, 2016, on page
A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Wrath of the Conned.

© The New York Times Company 2016

Looking at Labours standing in the polls the NZ voting public are fully
aware of the big picture Rich. Luckily the NZ Labour party isn't in it at present:)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)