But it’s also because Trump’s message of protectionism and nostalgia was tailored to those with something to protect higher incomes and a past worth glorifying. But perhaps most importantly, Republican voters themselves admit to exactly the “whitelash” Lilla says is a figment of our imaginations. University of Wisconsin political science professor Katherine Cramer has been going Jane Goodall with Wisconsin’s small-town, rural white voters for a decade. In a recent piece for Vox , she describes both the run-up to and immediate after-effects of the election. http://www.theprimitiveoldecrow.com/footdoctor/2016/11/09/a-useful-breakdown-of-establishing-elements-for-problem-in-toe/Despite data showing that these groups were not disadvantaged compared to other groups in the state, “people expressed a deeply felt sense of not getting their ‘fair share.'” They felt marginalized by everything from participation in state decision-making to state investment in their communities. Again, Cramer says, they were not getting the shaft on taxes, and consider that every leadership position in state government (aside from Walker, a suburban Milwaukeean) is held by someone not from Madison or Milwaukee. Mostly, Cramer says, these voters “thought that they were not getting their fair share of respect.” In this, I can maybe see a glimmer of Lilla’s thesis about identity liberalism. But it comes not from any Democrats’ active disdain for these voters, but rather by the way Democrats do not privilege these voters over others. YOURURL.comFor groups used to being on top, being merely equal to others is a significant demotion. So that’s that: Trump’s campaign wasn’t about policy to improve these “whitelash” voters’ lives; it was, instead, about returning to the nostalgic days when those voters had “respect,” back when America was great the first time.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/identity-politics-post-clinton-loss.html