A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

IIRC, it may have been whembly who posts on these comments that the party line drama BS would increase dramatically under such a system, and even less would get done.


I can see where that argument is coming from, and I'd be naive to dismiss it, but I also think that term limits need to be imposed on congress critters.

When one party is refusing to even consider doing its job, how much less can get done?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

IIRC, it may have been whembly who posts on these comments that the party line drama BS would increase dramatically under such a system, and even less would get done.


I can see where that argument is coming from, and I'd be naive to dismiss it, but I also think that term limits need to be imposed on congress critters.

The Truth About Term Limits

Term limit laws have created some clear winners and losers. Among the losers are the legislatures themselves.

Steven Rowe is a big proponent of early childhood interventions. He believes they can help reduce rates of mental illness, learning disability and, ultimately, criminal behavior. While serving as speaker of the Maine House six years ago, Rowe translated his ideals into a specific program, sponsoring legislation that expanded child care subsidies, provided tax breaks to businesses offering child care help to their workers and created a statewide home visitation network. When it came time for a vote, Rowe left his speaker's rostrum for the first time to argue for it, saying, "I have never felt more strongly about a bill."

With that kind of a push from the chamber's top leader, it's no wonder that his package passed by an overwhelming margin. It may have been Rowe's most important accomplishment as a legislator. It was also one of his last. After eight years in the House, including two as speaker, he was forced out of office by the state's term limits law. Rowe is now Maine's attorney general--a good job, but one that doesn't give him much leverage over the program he created. His cosponsors on the child care law aren't in the legislature anymore, either. They have been term-limited out as well.

In the absence of Rowe and his child care allies, funding for the package has already been slashed by a third, with more cuts likely to come. Plenty of programs have lost funding in recent years as Maine, like so many states, has suffered from fiscal shortfalls. But Maine, along with other term limit states, is experiencing an added phenomenon: the orphaned program, vulnerable to reduction or elimination because of the forced retirement of its champions. "We're probably seeing more neglect because legislators aren't there to babysit their own legislation," says Renee Bukovchik Van Vechten, a political scientist at the University of Redlands, in California. "We're seeing laws that need updating, and that's the least sexy part of the job."

Every generation of legislators and leaders wants its own initiatives to brag about and, as a result, sometimes neglects programs closely identified with a preceding group. Under term limits, however, a generation can be as short as six years. Legislators become like people who inherit large, complicated appliances for which the owner's manual has been tossed aside. "The imposition of term limits [is] the most significant--and some would say drastic--institutional change in state government in the last two decades," write the editors of a forthcoming study by the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Council of State Governments.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that short-term legislators aren't prone to engage in long-term thinking. It's happening in all 15 of the states where term limits have gone into effect. In Arkansas several years ago, members of the legislature negotiated a solid waste fee to underwrite future environmental cleanups. After they all left office, a new group, not appreciating what the money had been set aside for-- or probably not even knowing--dipped into it, disbursing the funds into a newly favored program of their own.

Even during Maine's recent downturn, the legislature continued to innovate in the fields of health and social service. In 2003, the state created the Dirigo program, which seeks to provide universal health insurance coverage through subsidies to employer-based plans. But new legislators are already arguing about the complex law they inherited. A few months ago, some of them accused Governor John Baldacci's administration of pulling a fast one by imposing assessments on insurance companies. They hadn't been around when these particular charges had been negotiated through a long, drawn-out process--in the legislature itself. "That's a major issue that was fought over just two years ago," says Sharon Treat, a former Senate leader and sponsor of the program, now term-limited out. "You would have thought there would have been some awareness."

EXECUTIVE CLOUT
Not all the arguments made against term limits at their inception in the 1990s have proven valid. One of the most common predictions--that with the members serving so briefly, all power would accrue to lobbyists hoarding the institutional and policy knowledge--appears to have been off the mark. Term limits have been a mixed bag for lobbyists, who must introduce themselves to a new, skeptical set of legislators every couple of years, rather than rely on cozy relations with a few key chairmen. Nor is there much evidence that legislative staff have taken advantage of member turnover to impose their own views on inexperienced legislators. In many states, the rate of staff turnover matches or exceeds that of members.

In other ways, though, the revolving-door system created by term limits has reduced the influence of the legislature itself. In particular, it has lost influence to the executive branch. One southern legislator-turned-lobbyist, who prefers not to be identified, says that he sometimes bypasses his state's legislature altogether, taking his clients' business directly to agency officials--the people who actually know how to operate the machinery of government. "There are some legislators who know as much as agency people do, but they're few and far between and they'll be gone very quickly," he says. "Agency heads are the true winners. They can outwait and outlast anyone and everyone on the playing field and they have consolidated their power."

Some governors have complained that lack of experience and expertise among legislators leaves them without strong negotiating partners. "A lot of these issues have to be dealt with in consecutive legislatures," says Angus King, a former governor of Maine who initially supported term limits but came to disdain them after burning through four different speakers, including Rowe, during his eight years in office. "They're very complex and if you always have to go back to square one, you never get anywhere."

Still, almost everyone involved in the legislative process sees governors as big winners under term limits. In addition to their constitutional authority to sign and veto bills, governors in term- limited states control many top-level state jobs that legislators facing short stints will soon want. Whether it is a question of job ambitions, a shortage of information or sheer inexperience, the reality seems to be that legislators do a far less effective job of competing with governors for power once term limits take effect.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, that state's term-limited legislators make just half as many changes to the governor's budget as they did in the old days, representing many billions of dollars in legislative discretion that is no longer exercised. The NCSL/CSG study found similar budgetary effects in other term-limited states, including Colorado and Maine. "The crumbling of legislative power is clear across states," says Thad Kousser, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and author of a book on term limits. "There's no more clear finding in the research than a shift in power where the legislature is becoming a less than equal branch of government."

EARLY DECISION
Kousser compares term-limited legislatures to airport terminals. Someone is always coming, someone else is going, and then there are the people who can't seem to find their way to the ticket counter. The state that best illustrates the who's-on-first confusion caused by term limits may be Florida, where House members last July picked Dean Cannon to serve as their future speaker. At the time, Cannon had served in the legislature all of six months. His term as speaker won't begin until 2010. But each freshman class in the Florida House has taken up the practice of choosing the person who will lead them once the class reaches its final two years in office.

One might assume that picking a House Speaker five years in advance reflects a healthy long-term perspective. In Florida, however, it reflects just the opposite: an almost manic habit of making premature decisions on the part of impatient members who know that the clock started ticking for them the day they were first sworn in. As absurd as it sounds, Florida's speakers-to-be in line ahead of Cannon are already being treated to some extent like lame ducks--even before they have a chance to take office. Influence in Florida is continually shifting to the next class coming through the pipeline. "With regard to Dean Cannon, he's a good friend of mine," says a House colleague, Baxter Troutman, "but for him to be speaker-elect-elect-elect--man, he gets inundated now because of the perception that he's going to have so much power handed to him."

Obviously the thinking in picking new speakers or Senate presidents well ahead of time is to give them some practical instruction before they take over the reins. As Sharon Treat, the former Maine Senate leader, points out, there are plenty of managerial challenges involved in running a chamber even before turning to the business of mastering issues, setting an agenda and getting a caucus to sign off on it. Other states have tried different approaches to the succession question. After burning through several speakers in its first few years following the arrival of term limits, the California Assembly gave the job to Fabian Nunez as a freshman, so there'd be at least a few years of stability at the top.

In some states, legislatures that recognize their weakness against the executive have tried to consolidate power in the hands of their leaders as a counterweight. Leadership, even when fleeting, still has its advantages. Leadership PACs have become the foremost source of campaign funds in some term-limited states, and leadership staff are the main in-house sources of information on process and policy for many confused legislators.

The Arkansas House has done away with its old seniority system--an obsolete concept anyway in a body whose members can serve only six years--and allows its speakers to pick committee rosters and chairs. Republican leaders in Michigan, who control both legislative chambers, have made a concerted effort to appeal early and often to newcomers, from the time they first express a tentative interest in running until they finally show up at Lansing. The argument is that by sticking together they can more effectively offset the power of Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Similarly, legislative leaders in Ohio, widely credited with having done the best job of preserving their power under term limits in relation to the executive, have done so by involving junior members more fully in their decision-making process--for example, going over budgets practically line by line in caucus meetings.

Still, it's not like the old days, when speakers in many states held sway for more than a decade, far outlasting governors. "If leaders are there a short time, the idea of taking on the responsibility of preserving and protecting the institution is eroded," says Alan Rosenthal, of Rutgers University, who wrote a book about governors and legislatures as contending powers. "If the legislature and the governor are controlled by the same party, the legislature pretty much gives the governor whatever he wants--they view themselves as members of his team."

In many states, the committee process has suffered perhaps the greatest blows under term limits. There's necessarily less depth of knowledge, and the old idea that a bill should be fully crafted and in shape to become law the minute it passes out of committee has, in many instances, become a thing of the past. Instead, bills are kept continually moving, replete with the mistakes of inexperience, in the full expectation that they will be amended on the floor or in the other body. That way, more legislators get the chance to make their marks during the short time they have in office. No one wants to kill a bill and set a colleague back a year, when she may have only six years in office. "They're afraid to antagonize each other, so they're willing to pass legislation out of their committee when it's not fully cooked," says Paul Gladfelty, who lobbies for corporations in California.

Double and triple committee referrals, once rare in California, have become routine. It's the opposite of specialization--legislators want a piece of all the action, not wanting to miss out on anything important during their brief moment of power. The fact that committees are no longer viewed as authoritative in their jurisdictional areas further strengthens the hand of other players, notably executive branch officials.

CHANGING MESSAGES
If early predictions of lobbyists seizing power under term limits have turned out to be misplaced, the fact is that that many term- limited legislators still come into office worried about the issue. Quite a few are at least initially suspicious of lobbyists of all stripes. "We are noticing that a lot of the freshman members come in with preconceived ideas about lobbyists," says Bart McSpadden, a lobbyist in Oklahoma, "that they are all slick and wealthy and everything is carried out behind the scenes and under the table."

Whatever lobbyists have gained in legislatures through the power of institutional memory, they seem to have lost with the decline of enduring relationships. Clearly, they can take advantage of the knowledge deficit that exists in term-limited legislatures, but building the contacts that allow them to take such advantage has become a more time-consuming and expensive proposition. The stereotypical golf-buddy lobbyist who wields influence through personal friendship has clearly lost out under the term limits system.

In some ways, this has led to a diffusion of lobbying power, affording a wider range of lobbyists an equal opportunity to make a first impression on new legislators. On the other hand, the new system puts a premium on the ability to orchestrate those first impressions, and the consensus among lobbyists is that it's difficult for small practitioners to compete against bigger firms with the resources and personnel to introduce themselves and their issues on an ongoing basis to continual waves of new members.

"You not only have to get to know these people," says Marcie McNelis, of the lobbying firm MultiState Associates, "but you have to educate them on the issues from scratch." Part of the business of getting to know a legislator, of course, comes through fundraising, which has become even more critical since term limits have created so many more open seats. Here, too, the bigger, more institutionalized lobbying firms have an advantage over the smaller outfits and the old-fashioned solo gladhanders.

However term limits may be playing out, it's hard to find a lobbyist of any stripe who likes them. "I don't know one lobbyist who thinks it's a good thing," says Rick Farmer, who has written about term limits as an academic and now works for the Oklahoma House. "If term limits are such a good thing for lobbyists, why do so many lobbyists hate them?"

It's not just the lobbyists. Talk to people who work in any state capitol where term limits exist--members, staff and reporters as well as lobbyists--and you will encounter the nearly universal opinion that term limits are obstacles to careful legislation and effective oversight. Travel a bit farther from the capitol, though, and you get a different point of view: Most people on the outside still like term limits. Legislatures in Idaho and Utah have repealed their limits, but for the most part legislators have been unwilling to argue for repeal in the face of popular will as expressed by ballot initiative.

Baxter Troutman, the Florida representative, sponsored successful legislation last year to extend the state's limits to 12 years per chamber. That measure now goes before voters in November, but similar attempts haven't fared too well elsewhere. Ballot measures to extend limits were soundly defeated in Arkansas and Montana in 2004, while California voters had two years earlier rejected an attempt to let term-limited legislators run again if they could collect enough petition signatures in their districts.

No matter how strenuously legislators and lobbyists may argue that term limits have made elected representatives less powerful, and left constituents with a weaker voice in governmental affairs, people outside of government aren't ready to buy that. The main effects of term limits are procedural, and it's difficult to make a convincing case that they've made any one particular policy worse, let alone imperiled the quality of life in any state that observes them. It's impossible to prove that term limits have led to higher taxes, declining services or deeper fiscal shortfalls. And the notion that term limits make legislatures less powerful is, after all, one reason why many people supported them to begin with. "The public voted initially for term limits because they don't like politicians and political institutions," says Rosenthal, the Rutgers political scientist. "That disfavor has continued." As a result, the public has gotten what it asked for, if not what it deserves.

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I think that there'd be a few hurdles here. As others have mentioned, communications are more effective today, so it may not be entirely necessary to increase the size of the House.

But the hurdle, or hurdles I'd think would be hardest to get passed, first would be the cost. 3x more people making HoR pay is going to significantly increase tax burden on people. Where's that going to come from? With our current policy of legislating in favor of lobbying businesses, it wouldn't come from them.

That cost, as well as the increase in personnel is most definitely NOT going to go over well with the Libertarian/TEA Party crowds, as that is a visible increase in the size of government.

 whembly wrote:

That's a pretty definitive statement... care to expound on that more?

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

 Polonius wrote:
Voters should have the representative they want

 Polonius wrote:

More practically, term limits would ironically strengthen parties, as there would be more competitive primaries, and higher turnover. It would make non-elected partisans more powerful. It would also increase the potential for quid pro quo. A career politician wants to keep his job and possibly move up. A politician that knows he only has a job for a set time is going to be looking for his next job, which is a problem when there are lobbyists offering things.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's a pretty definitive statement... care to expound on that more?

Sure. Just look at State legislatures, they're nightmares. If you want the funny cliff notes I think John Oliver did a bit on them, but it has long been a rule of studying American politics that the closer you get to the people the worse the debate gets. This is because most people lack the time, capacity, and willingness to sit down and learn about politics and policy, but are more than willing to form an opinion; often a very emotional one. The closer a legislative body gets to those people, the more responsive it becomes, making said body more emotional pretty much by default.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm against Term Limits, both on theoretical and practical grounds.

Voters should have the representative they want, and shouldn't be denied that person because of a term limit.

More practically, term limits would ironically strengthen parties, as there would be more competitive primaries, and higher turnover. It would make non-elected partisans more powerful. It would also increase the potential for quid pro quo. A career politician wants to keep his job and possibly move up. A politician that knows he only has a job for a set time is going to be looking for his next job, which is a problem when there are lobbyists offering things.

Right now, there is surprisingly little outright corruption. Term limits would make it a lot more common.

 whembly wrote:

Would it be your position as well, to rescind the 17th amendment, and go back to the state legislature's nominating the Senate? Wouldn't the current Senate shenanigan be muted a bit at least, if that had happened?

 dogma wrote:

I think they would be worse. Senators would become more subject State politics, which are nightmarish.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's a pretty definitive statement... care to expound on that more?

Sure. Just look at State legislatures, they're nightmares. If you want the funny cliff notes I think John Oliver did a bit on them, but it has long been a rule of studying American politics that the closer you get to the people the worse the debate gets. This is because most people lack the time, capacity, and willingness to sit down and learn about politics and policy, but are more than willing to form an opinion; often a very emotional one. The closer a legislative body gets to those people, the more responsive it becomes, making said body more emotional pretty much by default.

Yeah... I see what you mean.

Would it be your position as well, to rescind the 17th amendment, and go back to the state legislature's nominating the Senate? Wouldn't the current Senate shenanigan be muted a bit at least, if that had happened?

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

I think 2 would be good for the senate, but maybe 3 for the house? Career politicians are a cancer, but experience is also helpful.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Voters should have the representative they want

While I don't disagree with the point about term limits I find this point a bit pie in the sky. People have a pretty bad track record the last few decades overall when it comes to picking representatives. It is how we have Trump in the lead of the Republican primaries and how we get such dismal ratings for congress but ridiculous incumbency rates. I don't think there is an easy solution, and certainly Term Limits isn't a good answer.

 LordofHats wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

I think they would be worse. Senators would become more subject State politics, which are nightmarish.

I'd propose state politics are nightmarish in part because no one really pays any attention to them. Making state politics relevant again for the general population might reduce the insanity.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's a pretty definitive statement... care to expound on that more?

Sure. Just look at State legislatures, they're nightmares. If you want the funny cliff notes I think John Oliver did a bit on them, but it has long been a rule of studying American politics that the closer you get to the people the worse the debate gets. This is because most people lack the time, capacity, and willingness to sit down and learn about politics and policy, but are more than willing to form an opinion; often a very emotional one. The closer a legislative body gets to those people, the more responsive it becomes, making said body more emotional pretty much by default.

Yeah... I see what you mean.

Would it be your position as well, to rescind the 17th amendment, and go back to the state legislature's nominating the Senate? Wouldn't the current Senate shenanigan be muted a bit at least, if that had happened?

Not really, if anything it would be worse. State legislatures are a mess of corruption, gerrymandering, and petty partisan politics. Not only that, it's taking power away from the people and giving it to the government.

I'd also take that a lot more seriously if you didn't bring it up as a solution to any representation problem. You've even brought it up to deal with gerrymandering, when senate seats are basically immune to gerrymandering, whike state legislatures are rife with it.

 whembly wrote:


However, you point about the house 2yr appointment is worth mentioning. Maybe make it a 4 year cycle where half is on mid-term and the other is during Presidential election season.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


However, you point about the house 2yr appointment is worth mentioning. Maybe make it a 4 year cycle where half is on mid-term and the other is during Presidential election season.

I'd propose 6-8 year terms with institution of Federal recall elections. If someone is elected, let them govern for a time long enough for them to actually do something. If they're doing a bad job, or not adequetly representing the interests of the electorate, then the people can recall them. Otherwise, let them work and not have to worry about getting reelected in a few years.

lacking recalls, I'd say 5 years, but I like multiples of 5 and 10. They're my favorite numbers

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's a pretty definitive statement... care to expound on that more?

Sure. Just look at State legislatures, they're nightmares. If you want the funny cliff notes I think John Oliver did a bit on them, but it has long been a rule of studying American politics that the closer you get to the people the worse the debate gets. This is because most people lack the time, capacity, and willingness to sit down and learn about politics and policy, but are more than willing to form an opinion; often a very emotional one. The closer a legislative body gets to those people, the more responsive it becomes, making said body more emotional pretty much by default.

Yeah... I see what you mean.

Would it be your position as well, to rescind the 17th amendment, and go back to the state legislature's nominating the Senate? Wouldn't the current Senate shenanigan be muted a bit at least, if that had happened?

Not really, if anything it would be worse. State legislatures are a mess of corruption, gerrymandering, and petty partisan politics. Not only that, it's taking power away from the people and giving it to the government.

I'd also take that a lot more seriously if you didn't bring it up as a solution to any representation problem. You've even brought it up to deal with gerrymandering, when senate seats are basically immune to gerrymandering, whike state legislatures are rife with it.

I don't think gerrymandering is "that big of a deal" as you make it sound like.

For years, in the south, it was mandated that you have to gerrymander the feth out some districts so that the minority blacks are strengthened. If you re-write the bounderies closer to a population city/county boundry... which logically makes sense, you'd invariable could impact the strength of minority voice in the region.

 LordofHats wrote:
Simple majority wouldn't work. There are two obviously foreseeable problems with federal recall elections. One is that under the threat of recall, an elected official might never stick their neck out or take risks while governing. That's a bad thing. The electorate is fickle and always will be. While public officials need to be answerable to the will of the people, they also need to be insulated from the 'mob' or nothing will ever get done or really stupid things might get done.

A recall that is near impossible to execute isn't very useful, but one that is too easy to execute is just going to become a political tool that doesn't serve any higher purpose.

I honest can't say I know what form the proposed recall should take to make it useful, but it definitely shouldn't be simple majority.

AFTER ALL THIS time, all these debates, all these primaries and caucuses, the pundits still don’t truly understand Donald Trump’s appeal. I have in mind the TV talking heads — highly paid, well-educated men and women, white, black, and Hispanic, who make their living trying to figure out what the average voter is thinking. As a political junkie and son of a one-time politician, I watch them obsessively, and I’m continually amazed at how distanced they are — with their laptops, Twitter feeds, and ‘‘inside sources’’ — from the millions of people who cast votes for Trump.

I should mention that I will not be one of those millions. I’m trying to explain his appeal here, not endorse it.

There is no question that bigots and racists have found a home in the Trump camp, and little question that he says things to give them fuel. But it’s a gross oversimplification to suggest that most of his appeal is bigotry and racial hatred. That line of reporting increases ratings, but also fans the flames of the country’s racial divide.

Likewise, it’s another oversimplification to assert that his appeal is purely the result of anger. In his Salt Lake City speech, former presidential candidate-turned-establishment-hitman Mitt Romney said, “I understand there is anger out there,” but it was said with about as much familiarity as a Martian saying, “I understand there is water on Earth.”

Trump’s appeal is not primarily grounded in racism or anger. It’s primarily grounded in humiliation. And this kind of humiliation is impossible for most of the talking heads and for someone like Romney to understand.

I grew up in the working class. We were not poor, but we knew people who were poor and, even now, with my upper-class education and the middle-class status it has afforded me, I’m close to people who are working, and poor. There is a particular kind of humiliation involved in their lives, though many of them are too proud to use that word.

They’re not hungry. They have a decent place to live. But every hour of every day they’re shown images of people who have things they will never have. Virtually every TV show and Internet site offers ads featuring relaxed families sitting in nice-looking dining rooms eating a meal together and laughing. These TV families own a home, have new cars, take cruise-line vacations, and use the kind of electronic gadgetry that would bankrupt the working poor.

If they are white and straight, the people who watch these ads are also continually hearing news reports about the difficulties of minorities and gay people. Here’s the key point: Most of the working class and poor people I know — and many of Trump’s wealthier supporters — have no objection whatsoever to the idea of African-Americans and gays getting fair treatment. They do not want innocent black men to be shot. They do not care if two gay people get married. As is true of just about everyone else on earth, while they do care about others, they care about themselves and their own families first. The idea that these people have what is commonly referred to as “white privilege” may be generally true, relative to the horrible plight of many nonwhites in this society. But imagine what it’s like to come home from working a job (or two jobs) you hate, that exhausts you, that leaves you five dollars at the end of the week for a child’s birthday gift, and hear someone call you “privileged.” Imagine what that feels like. This is a territory into which the Mitt Romneys and talking heads of this world cannot stretch their thoughts.

And then along comes a tremendously successful guy who speaks your language, not candidate-ese, and who tells you he’s going to make America (i.e., you) great. Most of his voters don’t have time to go to a political rally. So when they see protesters disrupting the speech of the candidate they hope can change their lives, and when they hear him say, “I’d punch that guy in the face”— the kind of language they grew up with — and when they listen to him talk about the decent-paying jobs that were moved to China (something Trump says more often than any other candidate), is it really a surprise that these people go into the voting booth and cast a ballot for The Donald?

But the pundits keep shaking their heads in amazement that this candidate — who doesn’t use the scripted language of Washington, who isn’t bursting with memorized, specific plans and knowledge of various bills, who says things they find offensive — keeps winning. To some of us, it’s no surprise at all. If James Carville were advising Trump in 2016, instead of Bill Clinton in 1992, he might say, “It’s the humiliation, stupid.” And he would be right.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know if there is anything like an ideal proportion of representation. The UK has 650 elected MPs, compared to under 600 congressmen and senators for the whole of the USA which has five times the population. So, we are supposedly much better represented. However, people still feel a disengagement from democracy and government. I believe this is because of the First Past The Post system. This system always produces a definitive results, but at the cost of ignoring minority views, or even majority views that aren't represented on the ballot. I believe some form of proportional representation would help. All countries with PR have more parties, with governments consisting more often of coalitions.

 Da Boss wrote:
Trump is obviously a reaction to the failure of neoliberal economics to provide a good quality of life for a fairly large section of the country. I wouldn't call it humiliation per se, but I agree that essentially the feeling of being "left behind" from all the good stuff (never seeing your wages go up, never being able to earn enough to dig yourself out of poverty etc) and then also being told you're basically the source of all of society's ills is a good way to piss people off and push them away from you.

 Polonius wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Trump is obviously a reaction to the failure of neoliberal economics to provide a good quality of life for a fairly large section of the country. I wouldn't call it humiliation per se, but I agree that essentially the feeling of being "left behind" from all the good stuff (never seeing your wages go up, never being able to earn enough to dig yourself out of poverty etc) and then also being told you're basically the source of all of society's ills is a good way to piss people off and push them away from you.

I think there's a lot of great points in that essay, but I think it tapdances around a key point: part of what angry working and middle class voters are nostalgic for was when their white privilege meant more. It's more apparent socially than economically, but for generations the white middle (even lower middle and working) classes were substantially better off than the black middle class. Add in the loss of Judeo-Chrisitan hegemony over public moral life, most notably in legalized gay marriage, and I think there is more of a feeling of loss in what demographers coldly refer to as "whites without college degrees."

Now, some of that has translated into anger towards the elites, but surprisingly little, in my view. Instead, the anger is translated at the minorities that have robbed them of their privilege. For again, while Trump may make a lot of broad statements about making America great, his few concrete plans have involved xenophobia.

My friends are worried about me. They insist something is not right and suggest prayer, counseling, even rehab. “Take a break,” they urge. “Get away for a few days and clear your head.”

They are wise and kind, and it would be foolish to dismiss their concerns. Truth be told, there are moments when I doubt myself. Am I making a huge mistake? Am I losing my mind?

Perhaps I am. My friends say that’s the only possible explanation for the fact that I might support Donald Trump for president.

The insanity defense is all that’s left now that the smart set has declared that it’s immoral and indecent to even think about voting for Trump. OK, call me immoral and indecent as well as crazy, because I’m thinking about it.

It’s been a long road to get here. When Trump’s name first popped up, I joked about moving to Canada. When he launched his campaign, I cursed him, certain he was going to create a circus just when Republicans finally had a strong field of candidates.

I was intrigued by many of them, starting with Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush. Others I admired while believing they wouldn’t get far — Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and Carly Fiorina.

I like those Republicans even though I’m a registered Democrat, just not that kind of Democrat. I voted for President Obama in 2008, believing he meant it when he said no red states, no blue states, only the United States. The barrier he broke added to his appeal.

Six months later, I was off the bus. It was already clear Obama had no intention of building a consensus on anything, although few realized he would be such a radical and partisan polarizer. He may love America, but doesn’t seem to like actual Americans. Other than himself, of course.

With the world on fire thanks to his abdication of global leadership, and with the home front nervous and angry, the 2016 race couldn’t come soon enough. I hoped a Democrat would emerge who realized that Obama had set us on a course that was dangerous and unsustainable, with our ­national debt exceeding $18 trillion.

Clearly, neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton is that Dem, though I’ll vote for Sanders in the New York primary just to send her a message.

Following Obama, Clinton’s election would be a calamity. She would be beholden to him, and unable to shift much from his disastrous policies. And who knows what she really believes?

Besides, if the Clintons are rewarded with the White House again, it would be impossible to demand honesty from any public official in America. She’s thoroughly corrupt and, in the memorable words of the late William Safire, a “congenital liar.” Voting for her is a give-up on the future.

So I’m stuck with Republicans, but my favorites were rejected, with only Kasich surviving by a thread. Frankly, I don’t blame voters. They’ve had it with vanilla men who play nice and quietly lose elections. If the nominee is another Mitt Romney, Clinton would win in a landslide.

As noted, I do admire Cruz, but he strikes me as more Barry Goldwater than Ronald Reagan. He’s whip smart, but too rigid ideologically and personally joyless. If I were president, I would nominate him for the Supreme Court in hopes he could fill Antonin Scalia’s shoes as the leading constitutionalist.

Which leaves only Donald J. Trump. He’s weird, erratic and I have no idea what he will say or do next. His nasty put-downs of rivals and journalists, especially Megyn Kelly, diminish him. His policies are as detailed as bumper stickers and his lack of knowledge about complex issues scares me.

If he weren’t the GOP front-runner, the gaps in his game would make it easy to dismiss him. But dismissing him requires dismissing the concerns of the 7.5 million people who have voted for him. That I can’t do.

My gut tells me much of the contempt for Trump reflects contempt for his working-class white support. It is one prejudice gentry liberals and gentry conservatives share.

It is perhaps the last acceptable bigotry, and you can see it expressed on any primetime TV program. The insults don’t all seem good-natured to me. I grew up in central Pennsylvania, surrounded by the kind of people supporting Trump, and I sympathize with their worsening plight.

For generations, they went all in for the American dream. Their families fought the wars, worked in the factories, taught school, coached Little League and built a middle-class culture. Now they are abandoned and know it.

Nobody speaks for them. The left speaks for the unions, the poor and the nonwhite, even shedding tears for illegal immigrants and rioters and looters. The GOP speaks for the Chamber of Commerce, big business and Wall Street.

Trump alone is bringing many of these forgotten Americans into the political system, much as Obama did with millennials and black voters. Trump has done it with full-frontal attacks on lopsided trade deals and a broken immigration system. His message is a potent brew of populism and nationalism that reaches across the partisan divide, and the public response is stirring the country.

In fact, many who despise Trump concede he is right that globalization and the open-border flood of cheap labor, while benefitting many Americans, has hurt many others. But instead of working to fix a broken status quo, many on the left and right echo each other’s venomous attacks against him. One day he is Mussolini, the next he’s Hitler, and he’s routinely accused of hate speech and racism.

What is his great sin? Breaking the taboo about what ails the middle class? Daring to challenge a power system that only pretends to have the consent of the governed?

The shame is that others didn’t beat him to it.

For his chutzpah, tens of millions of dollars are being poured into attack ads against Trump, and the urgent blue-nosed concerns about dark pools of money in politics have vanished. As long as he’s the target, all is fair.

Often, the avalanche of sludge against Trump looks and sounds like a reactionary confederacy fighting to keep its power and privileges. Naturally, the mainstream ­media is slashing away.

A Washington Post editorial claims that stopping Trump is the only way to “defend our democracy.” In other words, those troublesome voters are the problem.

A New York Times columnist raised the prospect of assassination. Sure, it was a joke. Make that joke about Obama or Clinton and see who laughs.

I would be delighted to support a more conventional candidate who has Trump’s courage and appeal, but we don’t always get to pick our revolutionaries. And make no mistake, Donald Trump is leading a political revolution that is long overdue.