The uncomfortable truth about Republican voters

Some progressives believe "the people" don't know the truth. Since 2000, a Democratic president has handed off a pretty good or very good economy to a Republican, and that Republican has ruined it. It was a lie that Donald Trump was a successful businessman. It was a lie that tax cuts spur investment and growth. These progressives believe that once the lies are exposed, "the people" will reward the party that has a record of bringing prosperity to all.

It's a good story, but it says more about the (white) progressives telling it than anything else. They want it to be true that success and failure are understood in strictly economic terms. They want it to be true that "success" is rewarded, that "failure" is punished. They want it to be true that voters are a kind of "referee" who sits in judgment. The progressive story is deepened by the fact that Trump is polling badly. (Nate Silver said Monday that Trump's averages are worse than Joe Biden were after the debate.) The GOP seems headed for a wipeout. To some (white) progressives, that's proof that "the people" are seeing the truth.

The problem is the progressive story does not make room for an alternative possibility: that "the people" elect Republicans not in spite of the Democrat's success but because of it. In America, prosperity is inextricably linked to race. Policies that benefit the "undeserving," a label that always includes Black people, are always under threat. In time, a Republican is elected to restore "justice." The progressive story insists "the people" don't know, but truth is, they probably do, and they have acted on that knowledge three straight times since 2000.

This is not to say that Republican presidents are rewarded. Quite the opposite. The restoration of "the natural order" – in which the dominance of white people in America is preserved and protected – requires ruining the economy. That is what Donald Trump has done. A new Reuters poll shows a mere 35 percent approve of his job performance. He's burning up the country and Americans are rightly mad as hell. But the reaction is not rooted in economic policies per se. It's rooted in the complexities of whiteness. White majorities punish Democrats for helping everyone. Then they punish Republicans for hurting them.¹

You have probably heard of something political scientists call "thermostatic politics." It's the theory that policy and public opinion are at odds with each other. Parties can't go too far left or too far right without triggering a backlash. (When it's too hot, the public turns the thermostat down. When it's too cold, it turns it up.) "Thermostatic politics" explains why the president's party always loses the House in the first midterm after a presidential election.

But I think "thermostatic politics" as it's generally understood is missing the same thing the progressive story is missing: whiteness, especially its paradox. White majorities want the upsides, not the downsides. They want Republicans to make whiteness prosperous for them. They want Democrats to make whiteness stop backfiring on them. They want it both ways, though they have never had it both ways. Whiteness and prosperity are polar opposites.

To the extent that pendulum swings exist – when a majority gives one party control of the White House, then two years later gives the other party control of the House – I think it's because white majorities can't decide. They want Republican policies that hurt Black people but they also want Democratic policies to save them from the consequences of Republican policies that hurt Black people. We often talk about the electorate's tendency to resist extremes – not too far left or too far right – but it's not a kind of trans-partisan equilibrium. It's two sides of the same coin: desiring whiteness but hating the results of desiring it?

Some (white) progressives believe the way to break the cycle is by revealing the destructive nature of GOP economic policies. The economy falters, said Michael Tomasky, because "Republicans peddle an economic fairy tale. That cutting taxes increases revenue and spurs tremendous economic activity (sic). It’s a lie. A fantasy." The solution, Tomasky wrote, is a Democratic standard-bearer who will make the truth plain to "low-information swing voters."

But "low-information swing voters" don't mind destruction. That's what they have voted for since 2000.² That's what they got. What they minded was destruction reaching them. So the solution is not pounding "the truth" into the heads of low-information swing voters, as Tomasky said, because they already know. The more likely solution is breaking the consensus that permits them to believe they can have it both ways. That doesn't call for exposing the "fairy tale" of supply-side economics. It calls for exposing the "fairy tale" of whiteness.

Whiteness is the animating force that pushes the electorate back and forth, producing cycles of boom and bust that harm lives and decimate fortunes. There have been 11 recessions since 1945, all but one under GOP presidencies. Instead of facing the truth about "the people," however, some (white) progressives would rather hold onto the belief that voters are being lied to and that rational self-interest will kick in once the facts are convincingly laid bare. At that point, "the people" will reward the party that brings prosperity to all. Eleven recessions are not the exception. They are the rule. But you can't tell that to the willfully colorblind.

• george conway
• noam chomsky
• civil war
• Kayleigh mcenany
• Melania trump
• drudge report
• paul krugman
• Lindsey graham
• Lincoln project
• al franken bill maher
• People of praise
• Ivanka trump
• eric trump