Jimmy Carter Brilliantly Explains How The Establishment Gave Us Trump

[kristopher]

[bucolic_frolic]

1. I disagree with this guy's analysis

Democrat's problem was in having 2 strong candidates. Trump used the populist angle
to squeeze HRC from the left and the right, often agreeing with Sanders, and Trump
outright lied a lot. And the two Democratic candidates beat up on each other a bit,
alienating each others core base. Russian disinformation contributed to that result.

[sharedvalues]

4. Media gave us Trump

Right wing profit making disinformation machine​

[Cosmocat]

5. Yeah

I love Jimmy Carter and he is a sharp dude, but this popular "theory" just runs counter to common sense.

People are supposedly all up in arms about the disparity in power and economics being so extremely slanted to the wealthy, so they increasingly have voted against the party that stands more in line with their economic needs and votes for the party that makes no bones about enabling the super rich?

This shit didn't start on November 8th, we have seen republicans gain more power at all levels over the last 15 years, with only a very brief backlash from W running the country into the ground in 06 an 08.

THEN, we elect the very embodiment of ultra rich, POS privilege as POTUS?

Bullshit - flat out.

I live in a conservative area, I know this people WELL, and they are voting culture - 100 percent.

No ifs, ands or buts.

THAT is why we are were we are now, not some absurdly twisted rationale of blowing it all up. Just mean spirited, being sucked into the division and voting AGAINST the culture they are being brain washed about. They are so blinded by their fear and hatred they don't have the first concern about their economic best interests.

They just have do their part in slaying the evil liberal boogyman.

[sharedvalues]

8. Yes! Write an op-ed to the NYT

I live in a reddish area too.
I totally agree that the culture wars drive GOP voters.
And those voters voted AGAINST HRC, not FOR the GOP this election.
And the right wing media created that hatred of Democrats and HRC.


Why does today's print media skip talking about this explanation?

[Cosmocat]

12. IDK

It all seems so helpless.

I was a young adult in the early 90s and when I was exposed to AM radio, Limbaugh, etc. I was just flummoxed at the appeal. It was complete nonsense, but I knew so many people who lapped it up.

Over the last quarter century I have seen it get a bit worse with each passing day, leading up to this.

And, honestly, I don't see a way back. Maybe a slight push back. MAYBE.

But, the pattern is pretty clear that even if we can get the House/and or senate and maybe the POTUS, the republicans will throw a fit like they did in the 90s with Bill and the last 8 years with BHO, the country will get worn down and give them power back.

They drag up 5 steps further into the rat hole, we maybe scracth back a few, but the country just can't stop indulging their bullshit.

[certainot]

18. carter is talking about symptoms - talk radio is the cause

just look at the whole comey event - his whole participation re the election is predicated on the 'importance'/ public reaction to bullshit created by talk radio - hillary emails/benghazi - and now that's what republicans are using to defend trump - loretta lynch, susan rice, etc

the public push for citizens united was largely talk radio generated on top of decades of "money is free speech" and "corporations are people" and other bullshit from 1000 radio stations.

rw radio is the difference maker and people like carter add to the problem by ignoring it. they're studying fish while ignoring the water.

it's fucking stupid and our progressive orgs have led the way by ignoring rw radio while taking our donations

there are ways to fix it:

Poll — Polling rarely distinguishes talk radio from other media. Polling is an easy way to measure its effects. This should be the bare minimum for analysts trying to understand why US democracy has become so corrupt, dysfunctional, and hostage to an alternate reality.

Monitor — This is another minimum for the Democratic Party if it wants to stop playing catchup. A software combination should be developed to automatically record and transcribe major talkers on the national and state level so they can be searched. Patterns of repetition of distortions, exaggerations, and lies will help measure talk radio’s impact. Democratic candidates need to know when and who those stations attack — before they start showing up in the newspapers as letters to the editor or in think tank-written op eds and papers. The material can be used for alerting and correcting media, in advertising campaigns, and in debates. Public access to such material will inhibit politicians and media from repeating the lies and distortions.

Credit the messengers — One major reason talk radio is so effective is that it is ignored and unchallenged. Democrats need to put a RUSH tattoo on Trump’s forehead and that of every Republican politician and media hack who repeats the same talking points. Democrats can win merely by responding to lies with a preface like “That’s what Limbaugh says, but...”

Boycott — While Stoprush and Flushrush weren’t really boycotts they had that effect. That whole effort and boycotts needs to extend to all businesses that advertise on any rw radio station. While it will hurt liberal radio the rtadio is about 95% — 5%. When the monopoly is broken stations will open up for liberal talkers. It's easy and fun to listen to the local stations live or online and get some phone numbers and better yet emails addresses from their web sites. emails may be more likely to get to the boss and linger. And thank them for trump, russian stooges, global warming, loss of health care for your family, loss of net neutrality, and so on.

Protest — the radio stations, but maybe better than that:

88 universities that help Republicans deny global warming and minimize protests

[Cosmocat]

24. well thought out

Over the years I have literally randomly walked into about a dozen municipal buildings for work or personal business where they have Rush or some other right winger blaring, no lie.

It is poisonous and has infected so many good people.

[FakeNoose]

29. Absolutely - Rush Limbaugh and the other haters

I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, but I don't believe he has ever tuned into conservative talk radio shows. If he had he'd be more aware of this groundswell of hate & misinformation that's been going around for the last 30+ years.

Rush Limbaugh has become a multi-millionaire, but where does he get his dough? I'm sure it's coming from the Koch Brothers, the Scaife Foundation and other extremely wealthy bigots who are working this angle. Your suggestion of boycotting is very good but you're preaching to the choir.

How to get the word out to people who aren't on DU?

[certainot]

31. i think pressure on some of those universities to look for alternatives to

broadcast sports will cause screams from local GOP - and that will get media attention.

if a few university communities do that many or all of the 88 + others would be shamed into following.

that could happen quickly and excite students all over

[olegramps]

32. The only way to shut the hate mongers up is the to shut them down.

When the young people realize that their future is at stake then they will take to the streets and shut these purveyors of hated out of business. The Viet Nam War was stopped only when massive protests threatened civil disobedience. This has always been the bottom line. When businesses are threatened with massive demonstrations they quickly get the light. The most recent examples is when lying Republican politicians were shouted down at Town Hall meetings they felt the ire of the public. Only when the Capital is totally overrun with screaming mobs will there be any significant change. That's the way it is. The Forefathers fully realized that King George wasn't about the change the situation until his soldiers came home in boxes. When mobs show up at these hate mongers studios only then will they be silenced. They don't have to be violent, only damn mad and loud in protest.

[deurbano]

20. They live in an alternate universe. And as you say, it has gotten worse and worse,

culminating in that thing in the White House. My mom has Fox blaring in whatever room she's in (or even when she's not in the room) at every moment she's not listening to Limbaugh or some other right wing asshole on the radio. It's just constant brainwashing. I saw her "evolve" (devolve) from detesting that thing in the White House (during the early primaries) to attending his inauguration (she lives in CA). It's like they get their "marching papers" and fall in line, no matter what.

[Cosmocat]

23. Yep

I know so many "conservatives" who had nothing to do with him before he came down the escalator, so many who even hated him at first, but by the time November 8th came they were full on board ...

Pretty much highlighting how they get on boarded with all of the other bullshit.

[certainot]

33. they need to see their gods discredited and shouted at but it has been the

studied strategy of the left to completely ignore rw radio

[ehrnst]

6. This! (nt)

[Lucinda]

2. TY KNR

[jaxind]

3. I also disagree with this guy...

I also disagree with this guy when he says that voters liked hearing what tRUMP had to say. Excuse me....tRUMP is a liar, conman, bully, he's erratic, a narcissist, etc. and the voter chose to still believe him anyway??! Why didn't the voter ask him/herself "hey, tRUMP has all these bad qualities, so maybe when he says he's going to do all these wonderful things to improve my life, maybe he doesn't mean any of it, and he's just saying those words to try and get my vote."

[sharedvalues]

7. Because those voters were brainwashed by right wing media

Brainwashed to hate Democrats. And their hate for Democrats and Hillary caused them to vote against her and outweighed any concerns they might have had about the GOP candidate.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. THIS

In essence, they have been brainwashed to vote *against* "something" and/or "someone" as their primary reason to vote and they do this by voting for the person who is against the same "somethings and someones" that they have been taught to be against, regardless of whether doing this may be detrimental to them in the long run.

[Cosmocat]

13. YEP

that's it ...

First and foremost, they have to do their part to slay the evil liberal boogyman

[sharedvalues]

37. How do we get this message out to the NYT?

The press is handwringing about the white working class and their plight -- all legitimate concerns.

But why is no one talking about the right wing press motivating voters by hate to vote against something?

[BumRushDaShow]

38. Well note, the NYT is still a New York city paper

although it is available nationally (I have had a subscription since 1976) and tends to get national exposure like the Washington Post & LA Times & both Chicago papers - but all are still those city's papers. The "message" needs to get out to those smaller city newspapers in the affected areas in the midwest, like St. Louis or Omaha or Kansas City or Tulsa. And although most if not all of these cities are blue, they have surrounding suburbs that need some reprogramming.

[sharedvalues]

39. Yes and no. Starts with national papers

This is the GOP strategy -- get people repeating ideas and then those ideas spread all over the country.
Also you know the GOP finds the NYT important because of how hard their propangandists work to discredit it.

Yes we need it to happen all over the country. But the NYT is an opinion driver. Starting with them is ok.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. But then you sortof argued my point

When you are trying to change the narrative, that can't be done using the newspapers that the "other side" have already discredited to their base, because that base will NOT believe a word that is printed in them. You need those papers that are closer to where these folks live, to step up to the plate.

Case in point - during the final months of the general election, you actually had a number of "conservative" newspapers in NH, TX, and OH that actually refused to endorse Drumpf - the first time that they did NOT endorse the Republican Presidential candidate (either ever or in many decades).

THOSE are the papers that need to transition Drumpf's "base" off the Breitbart/Newsmax/InfoWars bandwagon and bring back the Buckley propaganda machine as a path away from the cliff (what I call the "annoying Republicans vs the RW racist loons now in control). They could perhaps feature some on the right who have been vocally pushing against Drumpf - like George Will, David Frum, and Bill Kristol (among others). Buckley's old rag - the National Review, is already doing some of that with their articles.

The NY Times is speaking to our own choir, not theirs. It and some of the well known "national" papers are coming out of deep blue cities and are unable to "speak to" the areas that need the conversation. That has to come from their hometown papers. Would love to have those folks "flip" to Democratic but that will not happen overnight. They have to be weened off the alternate universe narrative first. I would not be surprised if those "conservatives" mentioned above (and others who feel the same way) may try to put together their own think tank/alternate media outlet as a last ditch effort to "save" the Raygun "brand".

[sharedvalues]

41. Yes, I see what you're saying

But two additional points
(1) you're totally right that the NYT has been discredited with the GOP base. But the NYT is still a huge influencer of the country, because they are a huge influencer of the urban and highly educated. So yes, each media outlet has their own group they best reach.
(2) persuading the country can actually be done through the real media. If the NYT and WaPo and LATimes hammer a story long enough, it eventually filters into the big for-profit infotainment media -- CNN, NBC, etc. If the infotainment outlets hit it for long enough, it filters into the outlets you're discussing -- filters into local papers and even into the right leaning (non propaganda) outlets like WSJ and national review. Forget about Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart - they are propanganda with an agenda to tell lies that benefit GOP donors.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. The main way to get to those "local" papers is via AP or Reuters

(and occasionally UPI) as those are the most prolific news aggregators that feed national and international stories down to the local levels.

The fact that the NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, Time, etc are an influencer of the "urban and highly educated", doesn't mean that what they are writing about resonates with the rural, home-schooled crowd. Many of us laughed at and ridiculed the Joni Ernsts of the world talking about "castrating pigs" and whatnot, but obviously she "spoke" to some segment of her state.

The big city print media was pounding all during last year's election season, but the gasbags on teevee chose to go with their own narratives and push for the false equivalency in order to appear "balanced" - and that was made worse when they had the Jeffrey Lords and Kellyanne Conways and Joe Walshs spouting mile-a-minute bullshit while the hosts sat there mute refusing to fact check. You had people like Schmuck Toad claim "it wasn't their job" to fact check (although his whiny excuse was that he "meant" that it wasn't "his job" to promote the ACA, yet that wasn't our argument against him and his ilk - it WAS his job to not allow false info about the ACA to be vomited forth unabated - including crap like "death panels&quot .

Many variations of the stories that we see making it to the broadcast outlets NOW, were out there BEFORE, but broadcast refused to discuss it and when they did, the hosts allowed it to be batted down by the same non-credible loons that have been out there for decades spewing nonsense, like a Gingrich or a Sununu, and the topics were left muddled by people like Tweety or Andrea Greenspan among others. The days of "common sense" anchors and pundits are sadly gone (at least for now), as the industry has matured and morphed into something else since the early days of Cronkite and Brinkley. The broadcast news shops were merged with the entertainment divisions (a la the film "Network" from 1976), which spelled the end of news as we know it (at least on the traditional network/cable news outlets), and we are living the result.

As they say - "follow the money" and broadcast does just that. However, since the "controversy" of a Watergate redux is now the story of the day, the broadcast media has only now reluctantly picked it up because, RATINGS. Nothing has changed regarding the print media putting the info out there.

[sharedvalues]

43. Yes. Infotainment harms America. Except you're too easy onNYT

Agreed with you on CNN. Carlos Maza captures their problems well. (Stelter and Tapper are exceptions who are reporting the truth, not just stirring up controversy.)

But. The NYT was complicit in amplifying the Hillary email story (and before that, Benghazi). They convinced a LOT of liberals to dislike Hillary for little reason. The NYT weakened Hillary's support on the left. I might say that Maggie Haberman and Dean Baquet are as responsible for DJT as any other two Americans.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Part of the NYT stuff regarding Hillary

was due to the fact that she was a U.S. Senator from NY and she and Bill currently live in NY, so they were going to put them under the microscope. They have done far worse over the past 40 years with Drumpf and his family just because Drumpf has always been there since birth.

Despite the hullaboo from the RW media about the "librrrruuuuullll New York Times", many of its columnists are not "liberal" (and we all know about the whole Judith Miller fiasco). I.e., they are not "Mother Jones" or "The Nation", and they are certainly NOT their tabloid counterpart the "New York Daily News"! But they are also not Murdoch's rags - both the "Wall Street Journal" or "New York Post". So IMHO, they are more center to center-left.

I so wished that Ted Turner would take back CNN because what it became after he sold it, was a disgrace. They are going through some soul-searching, but much of what they and M$NBC have been doing is chasing the Faux Snooze juggernaut - and that was because Faux made sure that they appeared on every cable package in existence - whether for consumers or for businesses (including hotels, restaurants, bars, gyms, airports, retail outlets). M$NBC never had anywhere near that type of proliferation when they were tilted to the left, so instead of trying to be in more places, they decided to throw the "liberal" baby out with the bathwater and go for the RW spin, still not understanding that the station is STILL not available "everywhere". The fact that Rachel gets the ratings she does when only on a fraction of the outlets that Faux is on, is pretty significant.

[sharedvalues]

46. Agreed all around, except that NYT gets used by the right

NYT often tries to play both sides, and especially their headline writers do.

The right knows this and they can manipulate the Times and other centrist publications by seeding the media with extreme right wing craziness. Then the NYT talks about the middle which has been pulled to the right. The NYT also often gets caught reporting what people and journalists say, not reporting the truth. That's what happened with Hillary's emails and Benghazi: "GOP said...". "CNN is reporting...". America would be better served if the Times reported what they think is important whatever agenda-driven partisans say.

Paul Krugman in the op-ed pages has been saying this since about 2000. Finally NYT used the word lie to describe GOP words in Sept 2016, a decade and a half later. Does the news side even read their own op-eds?


P.s. I'd say NYT is center-right on a global scale. They are surprisingly hawkish, esp. on Israel related issues (and I'm Jewish and pro-Israel.)

[BumRushDaShow]

47. The one benefit of the NYT though

is that they have a shit load of dirt on Drumpf, going all the way back to his father in the '20s. These types of papers are generally owned by people who are GOP and they have absorbed the "jabs" at them as "librrruuulll media" with a "wink wink". I have never expected any of them to be like Mother Jones or The Nation or The American Prospect.

However this time, they have been outright attacked because the extreme RW media have "changed the rules" of engagement, so it will be interesting to see how the revenge happens.

[Duppers]

17. Exactly! ++++

I listened to Faux Lies for the first time the other day. It was worse than I imagined...and they're still bashing Hillary.

[gordianot]

9. I will always think there was paid for disruption of Democrats in both the Clinton and Sanders camp.

Not that money changed hands but people were targeted and manipulated. Much of the crap I saw on DU appeared to be disruption and today I blame GOP/Russian sources.

Note: I forever going forward link Republican GOP/Russians as the same basic interest.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. various ages have characterized them as many different things

international capitalists, global capitalists, slave traders, economic elites,
laissez-faire, social Darwinists. The common thread is get any government
and regulation out of our way so we can profit, no matter the consequences.

Such people have more in common with each other than they do with working
people. Country and patriotism mean little to them. Money is what counts.

[CousinIT]

16. I agree. Russia was actively driving fissures between Dems and GOP was helping them.

They may have taken down this site (twice) and Donald Trump is complicit in colluding with Russia implementing their Active Measures here and in helping them meddle in our elections.

They have also (I believe) compromised Trump and likely a few others in his admin using various different means (kompromat or other manipulation).

Trump was elected by a lot of ignorant, gullible, and/or conscienceless people who were raised on ignorance and hate (racists, sexists) and who value therefore an authoritarian style of government like Russia's. There are becoming even more than before a terrorist regime here - our very own style of ISIS.

No one will stop them at federal or state levels. They are white males - the most privileged demographic in our society so they get away with things no one else can. They are Trump voters - or at least a Trump voter's best asset.

People keep blaming Sanders, Dems, Hillary. There are two problems with this: 1. It just isn't so. Hillary Clinton received almost 4 million more votes than did Trump and 2. This chronic divisiveness and constant fighting between the progressive/Sanders wing and moderate/Clinton wing of the party will DOOM US IN 2020. We simply CAN NOT be divided in that election and win.

People need to put the blame where it's due: Russia and the GOP. Not only should we put the blame for 2016 at their feet, we cannot AFFORD to keep dividing ourselves (Democrats) with circular-firing-squad style infighting about it.

[gordianot]

19. I was not a Clinton fan but there never a doubt I would vote for her.

I supported Sanders in the primary but there were positions I did not like. Going to real life Democratic Committee meeting I never once heard harsh words between Clinton or Sanders supporters (I also realize that may not be typical). The Primary's are still fought around here but due to rules it is subtle. There is nothing subtle about Trump and the existential threat he poses.

[CousinIT]

28. Same here. Sanders in primary, Clinton in the general.

I would NEVER E V E R not vote for the Dem nominee - especially one as highly qualified as Hillary Clinton and with TRUMP darkening our doorstep. There was just no question. People voting write-in or 3rd party are just IMO INSANE.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. Yes the establishment is why hrc got 4 million more votes

And why Bernie lost in the first month but didn't give up till convention

It wasn't because most democrats wanted her, because why would that ever be a thing.

[Techsan]

15. It's complicated

I agree with Cosmocat's point from the perspective of living in a deeply conservative area that the hardcore conservatives are single issue voters. My family voted for Trump for the sole reason he was not HRC and that he promoted their white, culture preservationist attitude. As for the more moderate conservatives I know well, most voted for Trump and Republicans to "err on the side of caution" because they felt HRC and the Democrats did not align as well with their morals. Many of the moderates hoped/believed that Trump would eventually succumb to the Republican establishment and fall in line. They expected Trump to align his language and attitude more with the establishment as time marched on and that his fiery campaign rhetoric was more of gimmick to get elected.

I slightly agree with President Carter that part of the complex issue of the rise of the right-wing authoritarianism falls in the hands of unchecked capitalism that brought us the largest gap in wealth inequality that we've seen in over a century. However, another major factor in the rise of authoritarianism is due to our changing cultural landscape. Each time a new generation comes of age American society experiences growing pains in letting go of the "old way" and ushering in a more diverse and open society. Baby Boomers propelled our society forward in gender and racial equality but saw backlashes from their parent's generation. Now the children of Baby Boomers are moving our society forward with greater tolerance for gender, racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual diversity.

[Boomerproud]

45. Welcome to DU and thank you for your thoughtful post.

I hope to hear more from you in the future.

[denvine]

21. I think Carter is right!

People are tired of the corruption of money and feeling helpless because of it. As Democrats we have to see this or we will continue to lose elections.

[elleng]

25. Glad to see your agreement with President Carter,

and surprised/dismayed at so many failing to understand (and referring to him as 'this guy???' )

[LongTomH]

22. Jimmy Carter is right!!

Just talk to people out here in darkest fly-over country, where I live. People are fed up with establishment politics in general; that makes them ripe for exploitation by a demagogue like Trump.

[elleng]

26. Yes. Thanks.

And it's true all around the world.

Uncertainty, More Than Populism, Is New Normal in Western Politics.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016186853

[jalan48]

27. I agree.

Times have changed, look at what just happened in the UK. Even though we have Trump I'm more optimistic about the future.

[BarbD]

30. No magic fix-it pill.

Our democracy's greatest problem is cynicism and throwing up our hands in despair. Almost half of the eligible voters didn't show up. It is no longer enough to just vote, we have to get involved in party politics. Change will only come if we encourage good people to run for office.

[Plucketeer]

34. I'm surprised this clip wasn't taken down!

Did you HEAR where HRC was called a "Robot Candidate" ???

[DallasNE]

35. Spot On - Although Simplistic

Yes, Citizens United was a big player. But so was voter suppression in key States like Wisconsin and Michigan.

Yes, voters were looking for a populist candidate. Trump was a fake populist, Sanders was not. Most polls showed Sanders running 5 points better against Trump than Clinton did, verifying that point. The Democrats nominated the wrong person.

Yes, the GOP base was fired up on the culture war stuff making the Supreme Court the litmus test.

[zentrum]

36. Income disparity status quo.

Cater and analysis right on target.